The political science professors stopped short. I'll spell-out the Republican fix: DO NOT "..prize expressions of symbolic ideological affinity."
Here's the best example: Congress unanimously declared Obama to be the winner of the 2008 election. In a letter addressed to a constituent on 13 Feb 2009, the originator of the Birther Bill wrote "On December 8, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court overwhelmingly decided that it would not hear an emergency appeal that claimed Mr. Obama is not a natural-born citizen."
https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2009/03/birther-bill-hits-congr...
One month later, Bill Posey, R-FL was no longer satisfied by the Supreme Court and sponsored HR 1503. Why? Because media pundits had inflamed audiences coast-to-coast about Obama's birth certificate, BUT SAID ZIP about McCain's birth in Panama and zip about Obama's American mother.
Despite zero basis, HR 1503 gained 12 co-sponsors, got radio play, and went nowhere. Of course, state legislators JUST HAD TO argue for more proof to get a name on a ballot. AZ's bill was vetoed by their governor and the other efforts failed miserably.
Has anything changed? Republican Marsha Blackburn, a co-sponsor of HR 1503 and vocal defender of President Bonespurs’ attacks upon black football players’ "take a knee" method of protest, DOES NOT have the support of retiring Republican Senator Bob Corker (the seat that she's running for).
How many Republicans ever attack the far right as extremists? Almost none.
The establishment Republicans didn't go to war with the Tea Party. They welcomed the energy and activism and voting power of the Tea Party and quickly made them indistinguishable from Republicans in general.
And now that Trump has given hope to the misogynist, white supremacist Neo-Confederates and Neo-Nazis, by repeating their codes and retweeting openly racist videos, these "fine people" have come out of hiding and openly call for race wars and a global holy war. Still, some Republicans will criticize Trump, but almost none are attacking his base.
The Democratic Party since the 90s had been doing the opposite. The far left is made up of People that form their movements around the principles of universal love, and economic, social and environmental justice, and Democratic centrists, especially the Party Leadership, openly attacks them as "the lunatic left," as one "liberal" commenter said on these pages, just a couple days ago.
Bernie Sanders was bringing millions of new voters into the Democratic Party, so the Party, including the NY Times columnists accused then of being misogynistic Bernie Bros, with "pie in the sky" programs, that we could never get passed. Ever hear a Republican say that $5.5 trillion for the rich was impossible? Ever? No they made it happen, by following their base. Bernie's program cost no where near that amount, but no one called tax cuts "unicorn dust."
1
I can’t figure out just what this writer is saying; just as I can’t figure out what my Democratic Party is saying. Does anyone out there agree that Perez is a very weak (very nice) leader - Ellison would be, too. We need a Howard Dean - or to recruit a strong guy like Republican Michael Steele (flip him! He’s so anti-trump, I think we can) - FAST! MayDay!!!! SOS!!! We can’t blow 2018!!! But the DNC appears totally feckless.
2
the reason why the Left does not have a "tea Party" is because we do not hate. We do not hate women, minorities, gays, white people, the environment, or the government. The Right Wing Tea Party is a group of haters.
6
There are two reasons for the lack of a "Tea Party" like movement among Democrats:
1. Democrats tend to be less reactionary.
2. The Democratic party is not a liberal, left of center party. It is a conservative, slightly right of center party. Where the Republicans have been racing to the extreme right for decades, the election of a black man was the last straw. They went off the right wing extremist deep end. Democrats can't even see the extreme left, much less jump off the deep end.
4
Aside from the Tea Party angle, this column points out something else the GOP has that the DNC lacks, and can use more of.
PARTY UNITY....once the issue has been decided, Republicans will vote for a chair leg instead of supporting a Democrat. Whereas Democrats, particilarly "progressives" will continue to undermine each other, only to stay home on election day. Given the alternatived, in the next two upcoming elections, (2018 & 2020) the country needs a unified Democratic Party mote than divisive ideology.
I would argue that there IS a Tea Party of the left. They are the left-leaning voters who sat out in 2016 or voted for Jill Stein. They are the liberal activists who booed Sanders when he asked them to support Clinton in the general election for the good of the country. Like the Tea Party of the Right, they are short-sighted ideological purists who have a simplistic my-way-or-the-highway view of politics and policy, and they would rather watch the world burn before they even consider compromise.
2
There is a liberal equivalent of the Tea Party- it's the socialists that are trying to hijack the Democratic party, led, alarmingly by a non-Democrat. Thankfully, the Democratic electorate is smart, and has thwarted back challenges from this socialist/communist wing. Take the VA primary (or any other for that matter):despite stiff campaigning against Ralph Northam, he prevailed and being a more centrist, core Democrat, he went on to win the VA governorship. Both R and D parties need centrist candidates, who will engage with the other party on genuine issues, without partisan attacks.
1
If there were an equivalancy, it's members are either surfing/tanning in Southern California or, growing hemp/mj on a farm in Northern Cal.
1
A more perfect union.
That would be a great slogan for the dems this Nov.
1
"Democratic voters detest Mr. Trump just as much as Republicans disliked Barack Obama..." I'm certain you made a super-poll as evidence here, right?
When a nation's raison d'être is "individualism," the people who will suffer the most are those who need a bit more than gender/cultural/free speech "liberty." The most comfortable are those non-poor with an intense individual eccentricity around which they can bond, enjoying their comfort with no sense of obligation to others.
1
The comments section here shows us why the Democrats have no chance of retaking the senate or even the house this year. In fact when McConnell eliminates the senate filibuster after November's elections, the Democrats will never achieve power in the legislature again. The presidency will remain permanently out of reach. The Democrats are becoming like the "opposition" parties of Japan and Russia, utterly irrelevant. In three short months the "blue wave" has vanished before it ever came close to crashing against the shore. The Democrats' "generic ballot" advantage is now within the margin of error, which means it's gone. The Democrats have no advantage at all. Even with a roughly equal share of the popular vote, gerrymandering ensures that the Dems will only lose seats in both houses.
Trump is the most unpopular president since John Quincy Adams, yet he's still much, much more popular than the Democrats or the Republicans. Democrats can win one-off races against child predators, ex-con coal barons and mustachioed milquetoast Republicans because the Trumpers aren't aware enough to vote in lesser elections. But what happens when Republicans make Trump the universal candidate, and Democrats foolishly try to run against Trump again instead of focusing on picking off the weaklings? Trump has 40% of the country backing him. Democrats have Bernie, who isn't even a Democrat and actively works against the party. Instead of a Tea Party, Democrats have a "worst of both worlds" outsider.
4
The left believes that a "win" is a "win-win" and is accomplished with compromise. The right understands that a "win" is not a "win" unless there is a loser who is diminished or destroyed.
1
I would say there is and it got Donald Trump elected. The Bernie-wing of the Democratic Party.
3
I don't want a Tea Party -- left or right. I want the government described in the US Constitution.
2
Both parties are controlled by their biggest egotists, and there can be no compromise. Will the GOP give on the gun issue, especially when their looniest members are hankering for the romantic days of Dixie? How about the Dems dialing back on the immigration promises? Do they dare take an issue off the table that is tearing apart the country? "Sanctuary Cities Now!" "Sanctuary Cities Tomorrow!" "Sanctuary Cities Forever!" (Regardless of the crime.) ENOUGH!
We the people must demand common sense.
2
The tea party is a failure. They succeeded in putting a nut job into the WH, debt financing a tax cut for the wealthy and have made a shambles of the Republican party. Why would Dems want to parrot that.
I am a progressive. I want progress on issues such as education reform, college tuition, technical schools, environmental protections, infrastructure rebuilding and building, clean energy research, enhancements to Social Security, universal health care, public housing solutions and immigration reform. I am not interested in Dems administering a "liberal purity" test. I want people with ideas and solutions. If current leaders can't provide this they need to step aside for fresh leadership. Let the Republicans and the tea party wallow in their ideological purity while the rest of us get to the work of governing to make America greater not some retro version of a mythical past.
1
The "liberal Tea Party,” far from not existing, is quite real. It's name is Bernie Sanders. We will see in the 2020 presidential election how radical democrats are.
Also, I would not say that "reducing the scope of government" accurately describes what the Republicans want. One might look at their budget priorities and easily conclude that (with the $60 Billion unasked for funding given to the U.S. "Defense" [sic] Department this year, along with other activities) that the Republicans favor increased, infinite war, tax "relief" to the 1% and denial of medical care to senior, veterans and ordinary Americans. Their personal representative, Donald Trump, just passed a gigantic unfunded budget, so it's crazy for anyone to write the Republicans care about shrinking the federal budget. They only care about reducing funding to programs likely to be used by people that vote for Democrats.
3
I think the real answer for the dichotomy the authors describe is that its all biology. Ages ago, when survival of the fittest was still determining who got to reproduce, our basic behavior was genetically hardwired in our brains and involves a desire for power and dominance, for themselves and their tribe. One cannot generalize completely (though the authors are) but Republicans, like our president, tend to be those who are still the most responsive to those genetic urges. Democrats tend to be those who have some awareness that those genetically programmed behaviors are no longer as beneficial (since natural selection, or survival of the fittest, no longer determines reproductive opportunity) and tend to think more broadly and less "self" centered.
2
Somehow the article misses the fact that the tea party is a financial and ideological start-up of the Koch-network. Democrats don't have that kind of backing nor do they have the radical 'party over country' spirit that has come to define the Republican party for the last 40 years.
5
There is a liberal Tea Party. It just is smaller than the original right-wing one, plus it doesn't have the Koches or any other big money backers. The left TP is one of the many consequential factors that went into Hillary Clinton's loss in 2016. It consists of mainly, but not exclusively, young, angry leftists. They seem to not want to face the fact that America is a center country. Center right or center left is debatable, but America isn't far left nor are we far right. These angry people would make perfection the enemy of the good. They are the Bernie Sanders crowd, which was born of the Occupy Wall Street movement. They have high ideals, and their contentiousness and inflexibility do not augur well for the coming midterms. I am more worried about them than the Republicans.
5
I'm neither young nor angry. I'm a Democrat. Some people have forgotten what that means and that's why we've been losing so many elections.
People who oppose "high ideals" need to get out of the way so we can make a better America for The People and not just the rich and powerful. Those of us on the left are tired of being stuck with a choice between center and right. In other words, more of the same.
Sorry, Charles, but it's over for the Clinton Democrats.
4
That's the same blindness that led the right to believe that they lost to Obama in 2012 because Romney wasn't conservative enough. I know you are dangerous to what you claim to represent. I just hope we don't have to find that out in reality.
1
Right along side with you J.C.
I think Messrs. Grossmann and Hopkins have missed the mark, both in their description of what the Republican party represents and why Democrats don't need a "lefty" edition of the Tea Party. What the Republican party has become over the past 40 plus years is a party of forcing a minority's view of orthodoxy down the throats of voters and down the throats of candidates who dare to stray from the "party line." Democrats, on the other hand, have always been unruly, rowdy, messy, a big crowd under a big tent all clamoring for this, that and the other thing. And somehow, it works. Enforced orthodoxy is the antithesis of the freedoms guaranteed to us under the U.S. Constitution. The Democratic party, in contrast, embraces those freedoms and seeks to expand them, and by way of them, provide more opportunity, to everyone. Democrats do have a consensus, authors - it's just not one you recognized.
2
All non-progressives were removed from Congress by 2010, both as a result of progressive sore-heads running to replace these moderate Blue Dogs as well as GOPers angry at the gov't overtaking healthcare in 2010 with the ACA.
So the ''pure'' Leftist Democratic Party is sufficiently doctrinaire not to suffer outsiders wanting to shake things up.
But the Republicans are completely diverse even today, with people of BOTH sides of all important issues, from the power of the federal gov't to abortion to immigration to national defense holding important elective offices within one big GOP tent.
The comparative youth of GOP hopefuls ensures their chances of national success in the coming decades.
PLUS, the GOP's ideas have worked in different places, which you sure can't say about Democratic progressives' ideas.
2
Yep. When I think "diversity," I think Republican Party.
2
The difference is that Democrats are inclusive and Republicans exclusive. We welcome all into our tent whereas Republicans only welcome their specific tribe. It's the difference between night and day.
1
The D.C. insiders are the only identifiable tribe involved in our political scene, and they stretch from Dems to supposed Republicans like Comey and Mueller. Both ''parties'' share opposition to the outsider, Pres. Trump.
2
Except for white males.
2
Sounds nice, but ultimately a hodgepodge of single interest groups is unsustainable and unlikely to lead to significant victory. Why? Because it leads to voters who simply stay home if the party's candidate doesn't seem to represent their particular interest enough. There does need to be an overarching philosophy that is what the Democratic party stands for, one that is based in values broad enough to appeal to voters from center to left, values that apply regardless of demographics and other special interests. The party needs to convey a vision of social and economic justice that can make many groups feel that their views are being heard and they will get a fair shake without alienating others. Create a vision for uplift for all, or else we will be like a coalition in a Parliament that unites temporarily but falls apart when members start squabbling over whose interests come first. In return, Democratic voters need to show the same commitment, and show up to vote Democrat whether the particular candidate comes from their special interest group or not. Republicans win because they show up, even when they don't like the candidate. Democrats don't, and that's why they lose.
5
The closest thing possible to a liberal equivalent of the Tea Party would be the Justice Democrats, but they're pretty quiet about uprooting the establishment and more than open to working with centrists, as far as I can tell anyway.
1
There is no Tea Party on the Left (which would be far more rational and beneficial to have around) because the Democratic Party, while inept at fighting the "Right" is incredibly efficient and using overwhelming force in beating down those to its left. The mainstream "left" movements can seem to spend more time on in-fighting between factions (the distinctions between which are imperceptible to any not personally involved) than advancing their causes.
5
Exactly. In 2016 Clinton boosters attacked Bernie and his anti-corporate supporters to no end, while they embraced traditional conservatives (the old pre-Trump GOP, i.e. neocons) with open arms. Time for the Democratic Party unite against right-wing fascism and stop attacking those among its own supporters who care more about fighting corporate greed than playing constant identity politics.
1
We need to keep in mind that while the core of the Republican Party is driven by ideology, a large segment of Trump voters in the general election had little interest in Republican ideology, but were instead frustrated by what they saw as the Clinton wing's failure to address old-fashioned Democratic bread-and-butter issues. The total failure of the Trump administration to come across with any real help for the middle class opens a great opportunity for the Democrats to win back these voters in November. But we need a positive program that lays out the concrete steps by which a Democratic Congress will restore government BY and FOR the people, not by and for the billionaires and the corporations. Where is that program? Where are the leaders who will implement it?
5
The Electoral College gave us both W Bush and Trump.
Some suggestions:
Open primaries
End Gerrymandering
End voter restriction laws - give everyone a Voter ID
Proportional Electoral College in all states
Get the money out of politics
We see some on the left not taking money from PACs or special interest groups - Bernie did this and Beto O'Rourke is doing the same.
3
What, no mention of the GOP's use of racism to "bring out the vote" in Red states so they can deliver to their donors? The GOP works at making their base fear the "other" whether they are immigrants, Moslems, or blacks. The GOP's willingness to divide our nation makes them truly despicable.
3
There should be a "liberal tea party," and here's why: it would be a good thing for such a group to push the Democratic Party's policy preferences, esp. on economic matters, to the left so that the party can then achieve legislative compromises that are closer to the center instead of to the right.
Think of policy preferences on a scale from 0 to 100, with 0 being the most conservative. The Republican Party, at least since taking the Congressional majorities in 1994, has pursued policies that rate closer and closer to 0 (and further and further from 50) on this scale. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party, at least since the early-1990s, has pursued policies that rate closer and closer to 50 (and further and further from 100) on this scale. It should thus come as no surprise that, time and time again, the ensuing negotiations in Congress have resulted in laws which rate closer to 25 than to 50 (in other words, conservative policies). This is reflected in tax and fiscal policy, welfare reform, and even in "progressive" achievements such as the ACA and Dodd-Frank.
If the Democrats are going to keep pushing for centrist policies, which by the nature of legislative compromise will then be turned into conservative policies, then they should at least be honest and publicly admit that the political environment simply doesn't allow for liberal policies. If they're not prepared to admit this, then they should fight, and fight harder, for what they profess to believe in.
3
The movement needs a name. I suggest the Green Tea Party.
3
No TeaParty because we are less old, smarter, not racist, believe government can do good things business cannot and trying at least not to be as nasty.
4
This is the funniest most out of touch post in a slew of funny out of touch posts.
2
Black Lives Matter, Me Too#, Students against gun violence.
2
Passionate about the lives of people is not the same as ideological. In fact, all four of these movements involve people of various political stripes, ranging from center to far left.
Thank God there is no equivalent yet for the Tea Party within the left. In fact ,there is a certain detestable reaction to even the idea of it. There needs to be unity in being an American. Neither left or right, but an American. If you are an American ,progress is at our heart . What we have now is is hyper-criticism that has no goal or true purpose,but a high jacking by an alien of our process colluding with a political party. The primary goal for Americans should be the rightful change of our electoral college to reflect the will of the people. Not some fear by leadership of over 200 years ago . Whatever happened to one person,one vote? We could have avoided being in Iraq & stuck in an administration that is perverse in its interpretation of our Constitution. If anything, we have forgotten to rise up to the challenge of our Constitution, 'In order to form a more perfect Union. "
16
Embracing individuality while recognizing the greater good is not a bad thing. We all do not desire to, nor do we need to, all march to the same drummer. May as well turn us into the Borg Collective if that is what you think Democrats need to be. That is what the Republicans want to turn most of us (those not in the donor class) into - I say NO THANKS!
2
Lots of simplistic, blaming arguments here that seem to miss the point.
The strongest Republican argument is that people are motivated to act on their own behalf, that government should enforce contracts, defend the coast and little else, and that if an individual is having problems he should get his act together and quit complaining. Winners and losers both deserve what they get. This position is attractive to the winners, and to corporations especially because who wants to pay taxes to support a government that keeps telling you to play nice and follow all their stupid rules. So the winners donate plenty to whoever supports this thinking. A lot of losers think if they vote for the winners, then they can be winners, too.
The Democrats, on the other hand, have an awful time finding winners who are both sympathetic to the losers (most of us) and willing to spend a lot of money to support a true democracy. This is made much harder by declaring that corporations are people, my friend. We can talk itself blue in the face with all our lofty ideals, but it’s really hard to argue with all that money.
2
A very well-written and well-thought article.
2
''Why There Is No ‘Liberal Tea Party''
For the same reason there's no liberal Dark Money cabal: Dem politics don't lend themselves to exploiting workers or the environment for the uber-wealthy.
3
Democrats definitely have strong opinions on a number of worthwhile social causes. The problem with Democrats...the way they stupidly shoot themselves in the foot, was exemplified in the last election.
How many Democrats on their moral high horse didn’t vote because Bernie, who is not even a Democrat, wasn’t the nominee?
How many cast their protest votes for third party candidates?
They helped deliver Donald Trump to the White House.
Too many were like children who take their ball home because they didn’t get their way in the game.
Democrats need to smarten up on how to vote if they ever want to see their causes gain ground.
2
Janet,
Lots of condescension and slander here.
Who exactly is calling names and casting blame and shame whilst pointing fingers and stomping their little feet? Accusing others of causing your loss, while ignoring the larger % of your own Dino's that voted for Trump or stayed home.?! Your party coronated the 2nd worst liked candidate in modern history, and lost to the worst. Hmmmm.... who's at fault here?!
Somebody is certainly shooting themselves in their little foots. Again!
Keep hippie punching. Down and Left. Never look to your Right. Keep doing the same thing over and over. 1000 seats aren't enough. PUMA's and Centrists will learn....or not, and continue to lose. All the while pointing at others, ignoring the three fingers on their own hand, pointing back at themselves.
2
More succinctly, the democratic party is seeing women rise to positions of leadership because the party has always been structured in ways that allow women to use and highlight their natural abilities of compromise, listening, and caring.
1
it's not a coincidence that the Evangelical Christians are with Trump and the Tea Party. The right runs on authoritarianism and ideology (faith) and the dirty secret is that authority must have an 'other' or boogie man to exert their 'my way or the highway' beliefs.
3
These authors are remarkably unfamiliar with the DSA and the current fracturing of the left from "liberals" to "neoliberals, liberals, leftists, democratic socialists, socialists, communists, anarcho-communists," etc. What would these authors call the Sanders base? Polite and conciliatory, with a pragmatic eye toward policy change?
1
Republicans have another advantage.
They are much more willing to lie.
And their voters are much more willing to believe them.
It has been proven many times that people wanting to make money with fake news on social media found they couldn't make any money with the left and gave up and concentrated on the right.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/world/europe/fake-news-donald-trump-h...
3
" ... democratic voters tend to view politics as an arena of intergroup competition ..." Yikes! So the democratic party starting a race-civil war between the good not-whites and evil-privileged whites that kills 10's of millions is not out of the question! These two members of the NY Times stable of writers have definitely said to much by leaking the democratic party's destructive to American society's strategy of dividing and conquering our nation into ever more warring identity groups. No wonder when a white cop shoots a black suspect this gets shrieking weeks long coverage in the major media, but when a black cop shoots a black or white person as must occur many times a year in a nation of 327 million - we hear nothing about that and no organized gang of travel expenses paid protestors perform for the cameras and loot and burn for extra dramatic effect. No wonder the democratic party has 'out reach' groups that are continually inventing ever more sacred victim minority groups who they then can target special 'rights' patronage gift privileges to.
1
The Democrats tried to purge from the left in Tea Party style Rep. Dan Lipinski because of his anti abortion positions.
Only 3% of the Democratic caucus is anti abortion. Why can't the 97% of the caucus that is pro choice simply live up to their "big tent" reputation and not give ammunition in the way of talking points to their opposition on the other side.
The elephant is the symbol of the GOP because the elephant never forgets. The GOP will still tell you how Bob Casey of PA. was not allowed to speak at the 1992 Democratic Convention because he was anti abortion. The fact the he did not endorse Bill Clinton for president is always over looked.
But, the biggest reason there is no liberal Tea Party is liberals in no way want to be associated with using the TACTICS the GOP uses so successfully to win elections. Liberals confuse tactics for policy and their canned response to the question of why no liberal Tea Party always seems to be:
"We don't want to be like them."
Like what?
Like in control of:
The White house
The House
The Senate
30 governor offices
All or part of 44 state legislatures?
3
"(The) Democratic...party is dominated by an array of discrete interests that choose candidates on the basis of demographic representation..."
That is the Democrats' Achilles heel.
It may feel good to celebrate differences, but effective national coalitions focus on shared interests and values in order to grow that coalition as wide as possible.
In 2016 Bernie Sanders - and yes, Trump - showed the way. Both tapped the anger that global corporations run our government, economy and foreign policy, spoke about returning economic power to the middle class, and promoted economic nationalism. The real story was not Trump's open bigotry, but that rank and file Republicans responded overwhelmingly to his anti-Trickle Down rhetoric. That he now governs like a Reaganite is an opportunity for Dems.
Bernie was rejected by SJWs for not obsessing over identity, though his policies would have done more to empower minority groups and women than any number of Hillary's tepid tweaks to the status quo or the girl power rhetoric.
The Dems need to purge the Clinton-style oligarchs and start making bold economic appeals to the vast middle class - including flyover conservatives - once again. Stop calling out every group and sub-sub group in the name of diversity, and start saying "we" and "us" once again in the name of solidarity. That creates the governing coalition which can then directly take on social justice issues.
5
^^^WINNER!!!^^^
2
Gail Collins elicited high praise in comments for Nancy Pelosi and a reminder that she has served her constituents well and led Democrats well in times of great difficulty recently. Try readers' picks: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/16/opinion/nancy-pelosi-conor-lamb.html#...
(I was surprised as I had conceded more to the Berniebuster wing than most respondents, many of whom were her actual constituents and had nothing but praise for her.)
It turns out that she has walked the tightrope of standing up for all of us and the insults coming from armchair critics, purity monsters, rockstar fans, and others who demand absolute success fail to acknowledge that she has been a true public servant. That means putting up with real opposition and doing one's best in difficult times (a minority and corrupt Republicans supported by the likes of the Kochtopus and Kobach-style voter suppression), not taking one's toys and going home.
Cannibalizing our own party and indulging in circular firing squads enables the true perp: the modern Republican party which sees nothing wrong with getting its way by ignoring the true American majority and cheating their way to victory every day in every way.
2
I don't know why, but I'm happy that it doesn't exist. The last thing the country needs is another narrowly focused group that has not interest in compromise.
3
This argumentation is flawed, as the political spectrum is a circle. If you push far enough to the left or right, you come to those that seek authoritarian rule, albeit for slightly different reasons.
Other countries have far-left parties, but those other countries also didn't endure McCarthyism. Add to that a constitution that promotes personal over collective freedoms and the far left would seem to lack much room to lay out a platform.
1
Trust a specialist to seek the answers in his specialty. Maybe the explanation isn't political. The fundamental position of the Conservative extremists is that freedom can and ought to be personal and unlimited, even if it is anti-reason, anti-empiricist, and pathologically subjective. They demand the right to start an inquiry with the conclusion and to reason backwards for the sake of their own ideological purity.
Their counterpart is obvious: the reality-based community in science, medicine, business, engineering, etc.; the people and professions that apply reality for profit, advancement, and progress.
That "liberal Tea Party" is so relentless, pervasive, and successful that the Conservative Tea Party can survive by using its fruits even as it resists understanding it.
1
Amazing that conservatives continue to say they believe in personal freedom and continue to oppose women's reproductive freedom, assisted suicide, on and on and on. You believe in personal freedom if it coincides with your personal agenda.
3
There's no liberal Tea Party because there are no well organized and smart Democratic "Koch Brothers." The Tea Party was carefully orchestrated and very cleverly introduced and maintained. The organizers and major cotributors enforced their platform by running candidates against sitting Republicans in the Republican Primary. Democrats are poorly organized and out of date. Nancy Pelosi is good at fund raising but not good at inspiring young people to toe the line in order to strengthen the overall group. Rich Democrats who could be influential are more likely to spend their money on environmental causes that getting poor people to vote for Democratic candidates. Finally, the Democratic Party is terrible at picking candidates to suppport in Democratic primaries - e.g. Kentucy, where the DCCC is not supporting Amy McGrath, a fabulous woman candidate, retired fighter pilot Marine, happily married, and with three small children. She's great at talking with locals and represents a hopeful future.
9
Well said.
1
This article focuses its attention well, but it lacks peripheral vision. It focuses on Democratic Party activists and stalwarts, but ignores centrists who have been driven to the periphery or who have become Independents.
The authors see no purges within the Democratic Party because the major purges occurred in the 1968, 1972, and 1974. Famous liberals like Hubert Humphrey and Henry Jackson, for example, were branded "conservatives". They and people like them were pushed to the margins and rendered mute, or they left the Democratic fold (saying they didn't change: the Party did).
As a symbol of this change (and because of perceived voter dissatisfaction), the word "liberal" has all but been replaced with "progressive".
The authors also ignore the fact that the kind of Democratic interest group politics they describe is strongly ideological. Many of these groups are strongly ideological; the difference from the past lies only in the narrower focus of these identity-based ideologies.
Today, political Independents are a major voting demographic. The Democrats don't seem to care (maybe Independents won't vote?), and this article seems oblivious.
3
Interesting.
But I'm still just seeing a party owned and controlled by corporate powers in their own interests. The Tea Party - however ideological they may (or may not, individually) be, they are largely those lured by the Big Money Powers who wouldn't have enough votes to win races without adding many non-millionnaires to the voting boxes. The Christian Right turns out eager to impose their beliefs on the nation (the most serious being, of course, anti-choice). Also, bigots are easy to attract, eager to vote against Those Others who are Getting More Than They Deserve. Promises of restoration of jobs producing outdated items or current items using outdated methods attract the more ignorant, unemployed or underpaid workers .
Do we need BOTH parties to have a 'tea party' ?
Hopefully, we're on track , finally, to overcome this long, sad 4 decades of mostly GOP (corporate) power. Only 2 of these last 40 years have had any help at all from Congress for presidential promises and dreams. People do seem to be waking up!
And hopefully we won't mess that up with a Democratic Party tea party -with teaparty-ish claims that we'll compromise the real values the party addresses in order to lure voters .
2
Perhaps it's because the Republicans have only one policy (cutting taxes, and thereby reducing the safety nets such as Social Security, healthcare, Medicare, Medicaid). And it turns out that many people (including conservatives) actually like those programs. So the Republicans are selling something that even its own party members don't like. So far, they've been able to sell it thanks to racism and anti-LGBT nonsense, but that's a losing battle.
Democrats want to maintain those safety nets. No need to splinter when everybody wants the same thing.
3
Nope. Its Asymmetric, but this isn't the reason why.
Democrats rightly interpret these times as a profound threat to freedom itself. THAT is what is motivating democrats: Democracy.
Yes, the democratic party is organized as a coalition of separate interest groups. But that organization was a motivating factor for authoritarian personalities to rally to the GOP. About 30% of us are wired for authoritarian thinking: measurable lack of empathetic processing, narcissistic impulses and needing a strongman leader. These guys have all gone to the GOP at this point. They are making their move and naturally the other party is profoundly suspicious and pushing back. They are willing now to put aside identity politics to ensure Freedom and Democracy and safety and empathy survive.
That is what is going on.
7
They exist, they're called Berniebros, and they cost us the last election
3
Well said.
Maybe it’s much simpler: most Democrats have no real, urgent, and pressing policy disputes with Trump in the way that Republicans had with Obama. Or there aren’t enough Democrats to be marshalled in favor of the Paris agreement, illegal immigration, or raising taxes.
Parties of the Left see politics as a way of getting along in a society. Parties of the Right see politics as a way of getting ahead in a society.
Republicans believe in economic freedom and social-cultural constraint; Democrats believe in social-cultural freedom and economic constraint. Neither supports full freedom, but only one incessantly and falsely claims that it does.
2
"Occupy" was a fine version of a center-left equivalent to the "Tea Party". It was certainly named more accurately than the lie behind the Tea Party's name (the lie: that our Founding Fathers were against taxes).
However, "Occupy" is kind of static. I would prefer something like the "Preamble Party". The Preamble to our Constitution calls for progress (for perfecting, for insuring, for promoting and securing), not for standing still: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".
1
I am a democrat and believe in finding pragmatic solutions. Pragmatic solutions don't coexist well with idealogical purism, you must look for compromise to move forward rather than hold out in a stalemate. There is definitely a tea party of the left who are trying to push out moderate Democrats. The main problem is that difficult policy decisions can't be boiled down into 30 second soundbites. Its easy to get people riled up over a talking point when to fully digest the implications of the the situation takes a lot more effort. If you present basic income or universal healthcare with a detailed policy plan that shows long-term benefits and a workable implementation, I will get on board. Until then, I wish far-left faction would stop derided compromise as a negative and see it as a way to make incremental improvements in the absence of any other realistic alternatives.
3
Angus King for President! 2020!
1
I'd vote for him.
The acronym TEA stands for “Taxed Enough Already”, and the Dems have never met the level of taxation they believe to be sufficient.
Yes, reducing the size, scope, and expense of government is difficult. The people always love free stuff and the left excels at offering taxpayer-funded bribes.
Presumably, the good prof would not have been caught dead at a TEA Party meeting, because it was NOT obsessed with “cultural change”. At gatherings, it was expressly noted: ONLY ECONOMICS. Likely most attendees objected to identity politics – what reasonable person wouldn’t? – but the exclusive focus was on sane fiscal policies: lower taxes, less spending, no borrowing.
That said, the author is correct: the left is all about group-think. But that will not end well in zero-sum undertakings. It will be increasingly hard, for instance, to make the case for open borders and coddling illegals when Blacks pay most of the price. When Black folks start remembering that being an American is more important than being Black, and see that leftists subordinate Black economic interests to group think – that is, when Blacks become victims of “diversity” – the coalition will explode.
What the author describes is a Democratic Party consisting of a group of pirates, each out for a share of the booty. And policy founded on piracy must ultimately collapse.
2
the tea party was built on hate and ignorance. happily we don't have quite as much of that with liberals.
3
Yeah, because the Tea Party is working out just great for the GOP.
If your only standard for a politician is his or her ability to mouth dogmatic platitudes and feign purity, you'll end up with a load of corrupt charlatans, just like the Republicans did.
If the Dems want their own version of the Republican brothel, then by all means, Tea Party away.
1
In fact, it is working out just great for the GOP. Republicans hold the White House, Senate, House of Representatives, two thirds of state legislatures, and 24 of 50 governorships. If they get two more governors they could call a constitutional convention. If only the Democrats' fortunes were as bad.
Of what "radical minorities" do you speak ?
What would you call Occupy Wall St.?
The Progressive, Jimmy Dore often says: the corporate democrats would rather lose to a republican than win with a progressive......currently the Justice Democrats/TYT/no PAC $$$ are working hard to break through the DNC stranglehold run the corporate donor class ....progressives are motivated by policy change and are not a single issue force.............watch TYT/Aggressive Progressives........... the republican tea party was successful because they fed the underbelly of the GOP....progressives have a harder fight because the current democrats are actually republicans.......
2
Why no liberal teewhatever...too many educated people on the left who read and that think for themselves!
1
The GOP Tea Party was phony since they coopted the name of the original Boston Tea Party, but did so in the name of cultural 'conservatism' and paid lip service to the real mantra of the real tea party: taxation without representation.
The Democrats are fools if they do not create a new version of the real tea party with a slogan like: taxation without FAIR representation. So, they should forget about the so-called moderate-progressive split. And, they should take advantage of this opportunity. The main reason? Because it's a plain and obvious fact that this is what's going on with GOP gerrymandering, voter suppression and overrepresentation of red states over blue states and cities.
We have a ballot initiative in CA to split this state into 3 parts. Of course, even if it wins, Congress has to approve the addition of 2 states, which is highly unlikely. But, it is patently absurd that there's a North and South Dakota with 4 senators between them, and I'm sitting here in the most populous state with the strongest economy, and we have only 2 senators and only 55 electoral votes. It's just ridiculous, hence my moniker!!!
1
The right wing Tea party was effective politically because racist plutocrat billionaires on the right are willing to put real money behind it. The right wing long ago ditched all principles and will pursue any and all corrupt means to victory.
Any left wing tea party by definition will not be funded by a few billionaires and so faces huge logistical challenges even if there are many more people on the left than there are on the right. Also the ideological want wants to end political corruption and not encourage it, so they have the harder task of building a genuine grass roots movement as opposed to an astroturf movement like the right wing Tea party.
2
Paul Ryan is retiring from the House, not resigning.
Well, there are mini-versions of the tea party within left-ish circles. Many comments here are evidence. But there is not a tea-party equivalent among Democrats and progressives because progressivism can't co-exist with irrationality for too long. You have to accept science; you have to accept some rules of the road, some due process, some waiting in line. You have to accept people you don't like and still fight for their freedom and right to live; you have to defend the free speech of people spouting idiocy. Ergo: (with the caveat noted in my first line) progressivism requires rationality. Not to say all of it's adherents are always rational (they're human beings, after all), but rather, that it is the progressive vision that upholds the basic insights of the enlightenment and the founders. It is the alternative to the law of the jungle.
1
Totally disagree. "most Republican politicians, activists and voters view their party as existing to advance the conservative cause." This is incorrect. While I'm not a member of any party, never have been, this is a dishonest recollection on the author's parts.
The 'tea party' started as a movement angered by Obama's intent to tax and redistribute (remember Joe the plumber?) and was pushed in social media so that others would put their two cents in (e.g. send a tea bag to the white house).
It quickly was high-jacked by the far right, and most that embraced the shrinking of spending and redistribution were silenced. The liberal tea party is called 'progressives' and made up of BLM and other Soros financed groups, many who have been given non-profit status even though their sole reason for existence is politics.
Both the current 'tea party' (if there really is one anymore) and the left's equivalent are led not by the majority but by the extremists on both sides of the isle. Both are divisive and should not have the voice they do. But then, we are talking politics and every politician everywhere cares for one thing - re-election. And because of social media (and mainstream media that gloms onto the junk), our politicians now listen to and react to the extremes, not the majority.
1
Take a listen to Pod Save America. There's a lot happening on the ground right now, and there's a grassroots energy fomenting that hasn't been seen in years. As we shall see in November 2018, the days of the dilettante Jill Stein voter are over. Progressives from all walks of life want a piece of the Democratic party.
There is no "tea party of the left" because America lacks a left. The US government destroyed the American left in the WWI era when it jailed Gene Debs and the anti-imperialists. The mildly social democratic unions which arose thanks to the NLRA and assorted federal actions of the New Deal era became, at best, junior partners of the Democrats. Once the Democrats (here, read Woodrow Wilson and A. Mitchell Palmer) destroyed the labor movement and then abandoned the working class in the Jimmy Carter and Billary era, they invited the protofascists to cultivate the Mahoning Valley, Macomb County and assorted working- class bastions. College professors and high-tech business liberals still waiting for their Teslas do not constitute an American left.
3
Democrats would be foolish to splinter into some idealistic Coffee Party and everyone else who is progressive or liberal or centrist or pro-gay or pro-choice or pro-woman or pro-labor or maybe just a disaffected Republican who just won't abandon common sense, community values, and science for a few bucks off their taxes (and I am still awaiting the w-4 form to see if I get hit by SALT and idea that dependents are less than 18 worse than I get relief from AMT). It's time for a big tent, or maybe some model like those concerts with many stages presenting many artists to gather hundreds of thousands together to party.
I think the goal is to vote out the current clowns and then we can fight over how far to swing to the left (it will take years to return to Obama level leftness especially if you include HUD, education, Pruitt and western lands and all the other craziness going on that may be difficult to stop until 2020).
Tea Party and then Trump just proved that you can find enough people who are ignorant and rile them up to do stupid things ...
2
The Dems have a single unifying “principle”: hate for Trump. Otherwise, the various factions within the party are at sea.
2
Ctrl+F, "Koch", "phrase not found".
An essay on the Tea Party that neglects to mention its main funding source is news unfit to print. This piece includes some interesting analysis of Demo party workings, but the answer to the title question is simply that the Tea Party is an "astroturf" operation funded by Big Coal for the express purpose of advancing a corporatist (that's the polite term) agenda.
Any equivalent centrally-planned-and-funded move on the left would be treated as the resurrection of the Comintern. Plus we're a little short of billionaires over here.
1
The greatest enemy of the Left is the Left.
The reason there is no Leftist Tea Party is that people fail to recognize these "different" struggles are all one and the same. So they fight over resources and recognition for a particular cause rather than all uniting to oust the Trump/Pence Regime.
Those who are serious about ousting this regime espouse radical political views that sometimes make mainstream Democrats uncomfortable and thus unwilling to forcefully participate. This very paper, for instance, has refused to cover various actions by Refuse Fascism, a group oriented towards uniting all of these "different" causes to overthrow this obviously fascist regime. I suspect that is because there is a fair amount of overlap in membership between this group and the Revolutionary Communist Party; but not all members of Refuse Fascism are Communists, so this lack of coverage does a disservice to Democrats and others who want to do more than just march once a month for this or that specific cause-- those of us who recognize that this whole regime must GO.
(A friend and I actually have a bet running about whether or not you will even publish this comment, given that you never publish my comments about this group yet always publish anything I say about more mainstream groups like Indivisible. I’m betting no. Please prove me wrong.)
The point this article misses are the reasons WHY Republicans disliked Obama vs how Democrats dislike Trump. In Obama's case, much of the dislike came from things that simply were not true. Obama a socialist? Runaway government? Obama cut the yearly deficit almost in half. Thirty years ago, he could have been a Republican. The right is very good at assigning myths to Democrats, a la the Goebbels doctrine.
Trump on the other hand, is very much hated by the left for real reasons. The lying, the hypocrisy, the crassness, the incompetence. And I suspect a fair number of Republicans hate Mr. Trump too (another thing different than Obama - not many Democrats disliked Obama). But many Republicans simply support Trump because he isn't a Democrat.
Lastly, the LAST thing the left needs or wants is the hypocrisy of a lefty Tea Party.
1
.
Politics is not - or, at least, ought not to be - a winner-take-all situation.
Why? Because, for a democracy to survive, a majority of citizens need to be seeing steady improvements in their lives.
So, the real question then becomes: Are you willing to help your fellow Americans ... even those who are different from you?
2
This article and the agreement of most comments is absurd. It basically boils down to “ we are the left are so much smarter and morally superior”. Keep believing this. But if you ever want to govern again it might help if you actually started to win elections.
2
A "liberal tea party" does exist, as indicated by readers below, but it is not as strong as the conservative TEA Party. This is probably because the Kochtopus doesn't fund it nearly as much!
The Tea Party was organized by Koch family and Americans for Prosperity of Rich people. That kind of organizing doesn't work with democrats. Democrats stink at marketing because they have to be convinced of what they are selling (ideas or products) before they can sell it; while republicans just have to convince themselves to sell.
Thank you for this wonderful article. Saying "both sides do it" is lazy and inaccurate.
Nancy Pelosi is, apparently, the most-feared serving Democrat in the nation, judging by Republican campaigning. Democrats would be fools to relinquish her.
Many commenters have mentioned the perverse role of money in politics. This is indeed a problem, with campaign spending approaching $1 billion in some national races.
Here's what I don't understand. What are they spending this money on? Network television is declining, as people cut the cord. Meanwhile the internet offers much more cost-effective targeted advertising, as well as a platform for grass roots organization (which is effectively free). Harnessed correctly, this should be a democratizing force that counters the outsize influence of big money.
1
.
As to "where the money goes" in politics, try this:
Much of the money goes straight into the coffers of politicians who:
1. Use that money to get elected (buy ads),
2. Remember who - exactly - gave them that money &
3. Then do the bidding of those big donors.
As the main "job" of a politician is to "get elected," this 1-2-3 is great for the politician (& the donor) ... but leaves YOU completely out of the loop.
2
In my political lifetime (I first voted in 1965.) Democrats, the liberals/progressives, not the southerners, have viewed politics as a collegial exercise with an expected rational and reasonable debate and discussion between rational and reasonable people.
Republicans, on the other hand, have long viewed and practiced politics as a winner-take-all, take-no-prisoners, scorched earth political/ideological version of war. There is a sole victor and unconditional surrender and disregard for the defeated.
After 50 years of Republican search and destroy politics, maybe it's time for Democrats to take off the (polite) gloves and go for the Republican jugular. Seemingly nothing less will get the attention of Republicans/conservatives (including columnists...) and the battle is certainly worth waging.
2
The Dems are actually closer to "ideological affinity" than the article may suggest.
However many democratic voters do not agree on one or two issues - for instance the wholesale approval of immigration - legal or otherwise - that they view their side as embracing.
On the other hand there is widespread agreement on healthcare, education, retirements etc.
If the democratic leadership can bridge the divisive issues with policies - and this is important - in line with their base, they are likely to see more success without the need for the emergence of a radical and wholly ineffectual faction like the 'Liberal Tea Party'!
1
The question is this: why are poor whites not better mobilized among the “vulnerables” that make up the mosaic of the democratic coalition? Part of the answer probably lies in the failure of the US political leadership to admit that white poverty can be caused by historical currents beyond individual control. For example if we can recognize that slavery has a legacy hurting African Americans, why can we not admit that the states devastated by the Civil War still have huge numbers of white citizens living in relative poverty with poor public services for the average or below-average white person? Are the unemployed in the rust belt just grifters interested in, say, opioids? Are they not vulnerable? Why blame them for being ‘shiftless’? Not enough get up and go, you say?
Someone please talk about human kindness instead of cutting taxes on the rich and maximizing choice by turning public services into profit centers for anonymous (and unkind) corporations. Health is not a choice if you can only afford junk food or can’t get see a doctor except for a major issue at the hospital emergency ward. Please, give a thought to alleviating human misery. Please.
4
Some of us were involved. I was the party precinct captain for my neighborhood in Denver (2014-16). And when we were a bit surprised at the election results, along with many others - we asked some questions. Two of note: why the last minute fund dump for the national candidate over the local ones? And, the second, more a statement: let's try not to use the same polling firms in the future. Most indicated Hillary was favored to win, and so they didn't do a good job on sampling. My direct queries at the State and National level were not answered. That included to both houses of congress fundraising committees, directly to the party chairperson, and the minority speaker of the house. No replies meant to me - we no longer mattered an I no longer cared. Including ceasing all donations, as well as time and efforts. So, yes, some of us are no longer involved. If you want to improve your activists, by far volunteers, you have to take care of them. Failing to do so can cause their numbers to decrease. Russian meddling or not.
1
Republican activism is a paid job.
Perhaps the reason that Democrats have been in a losing tailspin for nearly a decade is BECAUSE the party has no ideology (other than pandering to rich donors) and relies, instead, on identity politics.
Trying to paint Democrats’ abandonment of liberal ideology in exchange for campaign cash from Wall Street as a strength is absurd.
And no, the fact that Nancy Pelosi is still the de facto Dean of the Democratic Party after a decade of losses isn’t some kind of strength to be cheered...
The turnover at the top of the Republican Party is a sign of regular re-appraisement, renewal, and accountability. It’s a nice idea.
Perhaps Democrats might want to give it a try.
3
There's lots of debate in the Democratic Party, but the party as a whole can't veer very far off where it is, because, at the end of the day, gravity still accelerates stuff at about 9.8 meters per second, per second at sea level.
There is no question to answer. The Clinton-ites still have a tight hold on the DNC. They have an erroneous strategy to keep doing the same old thing: They court the oligarchs for money, abandon the poor and the unions, whine about the diminished middle class, while they line their own pockets. The Indivisible Movement talks about joining as one, but really wants everyone to abandon progressive strategies and go Republican-lite like them. It is going to require strength of purpose and a clear message to beat the Trumpists, AND WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIME!
3
The greatest enemy of the Left is the Left.
The reason there is no Leftist Tea Party is that people fail to recognize these "different" struggles are all one and the same. So they fight over resources and recognition for a particular cause rather than all uniting to oust the Trump/Pence Regime.
Those who are serious about ousting this regime espouse radical political views that sometimes make mainstream Democrats uncomfortable and thus unwilling to forcefully participate. This very paper, for instance, has refused to cover various actions by Refuse Fascism, a group oriented towards uniting all of these "different" causes to overthrow this obviously fascist regime. I suspect that is because there is a fair amount of overlap in membership between this group and the Revolutionary Communist Party; but not all members of Refuse Fascism are Communists, so this lack of coverage does a disservice to Democrats and others who want to do more than just march once a month for this or that specific cause-- those of us who recognize that this whole regime must GO.
(A friend and I actually have a bet running about whether or not you will even publish this comment. I’m betting no. Please prove me wrong.)
The Democratic Party doesn't even control the use of its trademark.
It was called Occupy Wall Street. Why didn't it last? Because we are so self-involved we can't hold a thought, let alone a conviction.
25
Truth be told, the rich always find a way to squish and squash any movement that would make them accountable for inequality, injustice and in equitable distribution of wealth. History is witness to this phenomenon world wide, where oligarchs have politicians in their pockets. America being no exception.
17
Very happy to put that assertion to the test on Nov 6th.
4
That's not true. The Occupy movement had scheduled a mass day of protests coast-to-coast. The night before it was to happen, Obama held a conference call with the mayors of 17 cities and they coordinated mass arrests and shut down the entire thing. The Dems betrayed people overloaded with student loans- they are too busy serving the banksters. For what it's worth, the protests in Providence were peaceful: the organizers from Occupy stayed in constant contact with public safety officials and the mayor's office and there was no trouble. I blame the Dems for their own losses in 2016 because they do not stick up for vulnerable people.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable." JFK, 1962.
7
The ideological differences between Dems will not matter if people cannot afford anymore to go to college, and their relatives are can't pay the rent. Sociology trumps all the fine hair splitting of opinions. The test of the liberals is to vote for systemic economic rights, knowing the crisis is real, knowing that it is just a matter of time before our own family can't afford college or the rent. Until then, we are twiddling our thumbs. It's not "Clinton" or "Bernie"---and Bernie knew that, to his credit.
1
The greatest enemy of the Left is the Left.
The reason there is no Leftist Tea Party is that people fail to recognize these "different" struggles are all one and the same. So they fight over resources and recognition for a particular cause rather than all uniting to oust the Trump/Pence Regime.
Those who are serious about ousting this regime expouse radical political views that sometimes make mainstream Democrats uncomfortable and thus unwilling to forcefully participate. This very paper, for instance, has refused to cover various actions by Refuse Fascism, a group oriented towards uniting all of these "different" causes to overthrow this obviously fascist regime. I suspect that is because there is a fair amount of overlap between this group and the Revolutionary Communist Party.
1
The Democratic Party needs to get back to the basics:
- Infrastructure and Education
That is how you invest in the future. The G.O.P. - especially under Mr. Trump - is the party of the past. Nostalgia.
Most people agree that the government has a role in infrastructure and education - including many conservatives. The rest of the right wing can sit in the corner and argue about vouchers and privatizing everything, while the Democrats get things done.
1
If the Democratic strategy depends on gathering votes, simply because our current president is so awful, they may find that they need to do better than that.
1
The Tea Party was always a rouse. It wasn’t about taxes or economics - the Far Right’ s approval of trump remains solid despite new tax laws that highly skew to the wealthy. No, the Tea Party was always about white nationalism and white nationalism only.
Now that they have succeeded in electing a white nationalist president, no need to carry the deceptive Tea Party label anymore.
1
Um... the herbal tea party does exist. You can see in the comment section below. It may not destroy the Democratic party like the other tea party did to the GOP, but it surely exists. And it did take over in the UK. They had a fine Tony Blair magic sauce, but said hey let's jump off this leftist cliff splitting Labour. You can watch the Young Turks and others on YouTube complain about Doug Jones or Lamb's victories. There is a proposed litmus test for progressives on single payer, which is basically a different way to repeal Obamacare ironically. The article itself points out Nixon's purist run against the Dem establishment, which even if she loses can push candidates to the left, just as Bernie pushed Hillary left. Which is what the tea party did to Romney in 2012. This is nonsense that all Democrats are pragmatists with "social groups". There are statist hardcore Bernie supporters and there are "neoliberal" Clintononian pragmatists. The party has an interest in uniting these two wings to defeat the horror on the other side. But don't gloss over this widening schism on the left, it is significant, and the GOP glossed over their divide and see where that left them?
2
This was one of the funniest things that I've ever read:
"The Republican Party is the agent of an ideological movement; most Republican politicians, activists and voters view their party as existing to advance the conservative cause."
There is no ideology behind the Republican party, hence Trump. It exists to further corporate and elite interests and preys on the racist tendencies of those who know no better, and don't see the real intent of the party.
1
The greatest enemy of the Left is the Left.
The reason there is no Leftist Tea Party is that people fail to recognize these "different" struggles are all one and the same. So they fight over resources and recognition for a particular cause rather than all uniting to oust the Trump/Pence Regime.
Those who are serious about ousting this regime expouse radical political views that sometimes make mainstream Democrats uncomfortable and thus unwilling to forcefully participate. This very paper, for instance, has refused to cover various actions by Refuse Fascism, a group oriented towards uniting all of these "different" causes to overthrow this obviously fascist regime. I suspect that is because there is a fair amount of overlap in membership between this group and the Revolutionary Communist Party; but not all members of Refuse Fascism are Communists, so this lack of coverage does a disservice for Democrats and others who want to do more than just march once a month for this or that specific cause-- those of us who recognize that this whole regime must GO.
There is a sharp divide between the Clinton/Obama loving "centrist" Corporate Democrats- the current incarnation of the Democratic Leadership Council- and Progressives who are ideologically more in the tradition of the New Deal, Fair Deal, New Frontier & Great Society. In less polite terms, the Clinton Wing are referred to as DINOs- Democrats In Name Only. The are allied on social policy and on the environment, but differ sharply on economics, healthcare, national security & foreign policy.
Many of the Democratic base of voters are not active members of the party as they feel abandoned & ignored by these acolytes of the Clintons and Mr Obama. They ran in the primaries promising to be Progressives (≠ liberal) and then as hard & fast to the center right as they could.
The fact that Obama's DoJ did not prosecute one Wall Street Bankster, his Drone-A-Thon never ending wars in SW Asia, his ruling out Single Payer and flirtation with the Right Wing/Third Way Grand Bargain (a.k.a. the Grand Betrayal) are among the things that have made Progressive heads explode. Wall Street Hillary's claim to be a "Progressive that likes to get things done" went over with us like a lead balloon as well. The constant whining by Clinton supporters that Senator Sanders was "not a Democrat" persists on Social Media to this day.
The divide between Corporate Democrats & Progressives is very real. Dems cannot win without Progressives and we are tired of sitting in the back of the Bus. Stay Tuned.
2
If it were only so.
For all of the rhetoric about the Republicans, their control points are easy to boil down: 1) money and 2) abortion.
The Donor Class, although it has spun it in so many ways that you can get dizzy, is about getting as much money as it can into its hands. The Religious Class, in contrast, is expressing its existential needs in their goal of abolishing abortion. (Critics who see hypocrisy, are wrong. Many of them find Trump to be disgusting, but have done a moral calculus that that places the prevention of murder (as they see it), above all other moral objections).
These are very easy to define goals. In the case of the money, the goal is self-reinforcing. Given Citizens United, the more money you make, the more money you have to game the system further.
The Democrats have no such simple to state and clearly measurable outcomes. There are reasonable arguments for many of the policies. Be sure that the Republicans will work to open those cleavage points, especially regarding immigration involving the euphemistically-called "undocumented."
1
Yes, the Republican Party is ideological, populated with people who believe force of will can alter reality. On the other hand, the Democratic Party is populated with pragmatic people who believe that understanding natural causes and effects allows solutions to be developed on scientific bases.
The actual mechanics of politics, the efforts to boost voter registration and turnout for all elections, are prosaic, and tend to bore many people. Thus, there are always more volunteers for fanatical causes, than for the constant fine tuning of managed evolution of center-left liberalism.
2
Please consider this too: the Democratic party is a mess. It lacks a vision for America's future, at least a vision that it is willing to express. The "women's demonstration" the day after Trump's taking office was a fantastic outpouring, but why, in 2017, were we having a demonstration focused on and led by women? To make up for the fact that Hillary did not win the Electoral College?
Women's rights are vitally important and so is the long effort at true economic and social equality for women. Just about everyone recognizes these facts. How about keeping on making the point after you've won the argument? Good idea? This makes it seem like the argument isn't over equality but a new era when women will dominate politics.
I would argue that the inclusion of black citizens in the mainstream of our society is a more pressing issue because, at the very least, well educated, professionally successful white women have power. Poor people without jobs and little prospect of improvement don't have much power at all.
One of the reasons the Democrats lost in 2016 was the insistence that a woman MUST become president right then. Hillary Clinton had been the subject of a 25 yr. long campaign of demonization plus she and her husband had made massive mistakes during the time they were out of office, specifically, the Clinton Foundation taking in money from around the world. Almost any other Democrat would have beaten Trump and we wouldn't be in this rolling crisis.
2
The bottom line is, and it was omitted from the article, that Tea Party has a propaganda arm, a Right Wing Media conglomerate (Fox, radio, internet, and now Sinclair) that has a faithful following of 50 to 60 millions Americans. It is self-financing.
Nothing like that on the left. The effect is that conservative efforts to vilify any liberal candidate are easily coordinated and thus effective, whereas democratic efforts are mostly spontaneous.
2
"But most Democrats give precedence to more tangible rewards."
If losing is a tangible reward, the democrats should be congratulated for their success.
4
There us a strong Progressive movement but it's not seeking to destroy the status quo / it's not "victory" at all costs. The party has always had in " modern times" a progressive wing. At this point it's more powerful & pronounced because of all the issues facing us today politically, socially, environmental & economic not just here but across the globe. We are in flux.
In addition this late before the 2018 elections nobody is interested in throwing in a wrench. One if our strengths is that we see grey not just black or white in issues. The best possible outcome is a successful midterm followed immediately by a change in leadership. If Pelosi cares about the party she rub her eyes & see clearly that NOW is the time to bring in new younger leadership. Love her or hate her it's irrelevant. Our leadership is aging & the progressive movement needs to be nurtured & grown so it can benefit ALL in the country including the rural red States.
If this us not our end game while playing tough with the far right & calling them out while putting forth a progressive agenda for all. - then hang it up.
WE need to win but for ALL in the country.
2
We do, it's called the Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party, who release their own progressive budget proposals, and have a far left agenda. Unfortunately their proposals never reach the general public, or for that matter see much light of day because the media is too busy fawning over the Talmudic utterances of Paul Ryan, and the Democrats have still not found their way out of the desert.
An enlightening article about the Tea Party would at least summarize it correctly. It was not about 'popular dissatisfaction with cultural change'. It was an economic movement born out of the 2008 crash and anger over bailouts of the banks that had a hand in the crash. It was launched on the floor of the CME by Rick Santelli for heaven's sake. It was concerned with taxes and big government and crony capitalism. Hence the name Tea Party. It as not a Christian/cultural movement. That's how the left perceived it, but not how its members did.
"Leaders on the right" did not "channel these sentiments into opposition...". These sentiments were part and parcel of the movement from the beginning. Opposition to ACA is the very DNA of the Tea Party.
I don't even support the Tea Party, but a useful article has to be accurate.
5
"Opposition to ACA is the very DNA of the Tea Party."
Many tea party members are using Obamacare and they were promised that Trumpcare will be cheaper and better....
1
Often lost and this grim discussion of the distinctions between our two major political parties is the reality that Republican leadership has descended into a nixious cabal of simply rotten human beings.
Although we need look no further then President Trump for such an assessment, when we scratch below that malignant surface we find in short order a widespread mix of hypocrisy, corruption, sanctimony, venality, spinelessness and such a degree of mean-spiritedness that it falls outside the range of normal human comportment.
Following the president we have Mike Pence, Tom Price, Scott Pruitt, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Betsy DeVos, Ryan Zincke, Steve Mnuchin, Jeff Sessions, Larry Kudlow -- and the woeful list goes on and on. The depth of human malefaction among GOP leadership is so profound that it makes the head spin.
the Democratic party is far from perfect but nothing can compare with the GOP for the most hideous exemplars of vainly arrogant, self-serving human nature.
and we, the taxpayers, are paying for this maleficence.
3
The Tea Party movement was about racism, hatred, nihilism, and demonizing perceived "enemies." Having been on the receiving end of Tea Party viciousness, I hope Democrats will demonstrate opposition without the Tea Party's contemptible tactics and rhetoric.
4
It’s articles like this that convince me that not only will Trump win again if not indicted by 2020, but the the Dems will not take either House or Senate. I was a Dem for 30 years, but totally disgusted now. Not voting for timid half measures or false hope of change ever again. Not voting for illegals rights to American jobs. Not voting to denigrate men. Not voting to check my white privilege. Not voting to pay for trans surgery or locker rooms. Tax the rich, increase safety nets, back off the military spending, build infrastructure, create jobs, rein in student debt, nationalize health care.
6
Nor should for you are clearly a Republican if those are the things you stand for.
Wow Glen.
Plenty of Name's ideas fall into the Democratic party. I'd prefer Name's vote and then negotiate from there.
Big Tent baby! We The People!
Well, how have the Dems in Congress been doing under Pelosi? 111th Congress, D=257 house seats; 112th D=193' 113th, D=200; 114th D=186. She remains because her members love her fund-raising more than winning the house. So the old Queen remains to govern the remains of the Dems.
2
"The Tea Party movement reflected a popular dissatisfaction with cultural change, of which Mr. Obama’s election was a powerful symbol".
'Cultural Change' means a president with some African ancestry. It will help the conversation if you identify racist hatred for what it is.
This debate is ancient. Rational, liberal-leaning, people drag the others along as they re-shape society. Conservatives benefit but give no credit. So it will be in the future...
3
Democrats don't need an extremist wing that will undermine good governance - they need leadership. The late-state Boomers currently running the show just want to hang on to their individual fiefdoms, hence the lack of message. Unfortunately, this probably won't change unless 2018 turns out even worse than 2016.
2
I think you make this a little more complicated than it needs to be.
Republicans are against things. they are negative. they want to go backwards in time. they crave powerful, top-down authority. they love symbolism.
Democrats are for things. they are positive government can help Americans to have better lives. they want to make changes for the better with an eye to the future. they are suspicious of investing too much power in transitory officials, especially in the executive, and put more trust in professional, career government staff. they love achievements.
3
Please, please understand this: the tea party (not capitalized) was mid-wifed by Republican political operatives, like Dick Armey, former majority leader in the House, and brought into existence by the support of hundreds of millions in spending outside of the traditional parties. Wake up! Just because this has not been repeatedly covered by major media, it does not follow that it is not true.
The tea party was NOT a grass roots effort, it was astro-turf, a carefully planned and orchestrated effort to undermine the legitimacy of the new president, Obama. The first mass demonstration in Washington, DC, by the movement took place in March, 2009, long before even an outline of "Obamacare" was presented or known. They didn't know what it was, but they were against it! Some demonstrators actually carried signs saying, "Keep your government hands off my Social Security and Medicare!".
Were the Democrats involved in supporting or encouraging the anti-Trump march of Jan. 21, 2017? Of course they were, but the size of that and other demonstrations makes clear that they could not have happened without a spontaneous eruption of concern and even fear.
As for the Democrats generally, they need to focus. Instead, various groups, including women, are using the opposition to Trump to build themselves up. The message goes forth with a mighty sounding of horns and dies out about three days later. Trump is right not to be too worried unless all that energy can hit the elections this year.
3
It is unbelievable how Hillary supporters have chosen to blame Bernie and others for the loss. One specific issue is that more Hillary supporters in the primary voted for McCain in 2008, with that Alaskan woman in tow, in the general election, than voted for Bernie in 2016 primaries and switched to Trump in the general election. In fact 20% who supported Hillary in 2008 crossed over in the general compared to 12% of Bernie supporters in 2016.
Clinton supporters choosing to attack the left, to blame Bernie supporters who have a huge problem with the corporate funding of the Democratic party, who resent Hillary voting to give GWB the authorization to invade Iraq. I voted for Hillary as a Bernie supporter. The party and Hillary seem blinded by the necessity to embrace the working people, and the millenials. They have depended on true liberals voting for the lesser of two evils for far too long. The core of the party is FDR, New Deal, Labor, Civil Rights, Constitutional protection for individuals, and they have chosen to accept big donor money, and become Republican light.
You cannot fix the DNC without wholesale change to how politics is played, with big money and lobbyists, something the Democrats have the power to change, without an amendment, they can simply wean themselves off this big money and stand up for the principles the party is supposed to support. When they start supporting the people and those issues, the contributions will come.
11
Michael,
Great comment.
Hey NYT! ^^^THIS^^^ should have been a "pick!
Funny how the Clinton '08 PUMA's resemble the same disunity they are now visiting upon the Berniecrats.
https://www.salon.com/2008/06/23/pumas/
Note also that the Dino flippers cost HRC the loss at 3-1 as compared to Berniecrats going 3rd party.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/opinion/sunday/obama-trump-voters-dem...
Same % of Dems in Fla. that voted for Bush over Gore. 300,000 to 97,000 Nader. 3-1
2
I read this piece partly because of the "teaser" for it on the Times's home page: "Democrats promote a different cause every week." Now there's an idea I thought I could get behind.
The right wing makes fun of us because we have so many causes. Never mind that they gave us many of them. I mean, who would want us to promote climate change, or to increase pollution, or to give vast amounts of corporate welfare by taking away money from those least able to afford it? We couldn't have imagined that anyone would want to do these horrible things--but, guess what? There seem to be people who want exactly those things.
Meanwhile, the centrists tell us to shut up and be team players, instead of shooting ourselves in the feet. Ooh, that reminds me--did I mention there are people who say we should have more guns in schools, and fewer (or at least, different) books there? It's true, there are such people. Anyway, the centrists think we should stop flitting from one issue to another and would really be happier if we ignored some "divisive" issues altogether.
I think having a Save-the-Planet week devoted to discussion of global climate change, followed by a Health Care week devoted to discussion of how to be sure that people who need health care will get it,
etc., would be a good way to focus attention on neglected issues.
Alas, the one-cause-per-week idea isn't even mentioned in the piece itself, which devolves into more centrist pablum.
The Democrats, it seems to me, are challenged and sometimes appear weak, as the party spans a broad political spectrum. In the USA, the Democrats contain what in most other developed democracies are two (or more) parties. For example, in Canada there is a Labour (NDP) and a Liberal Party. There are many overlapping values and positions between these parties and they often form coalition in legislature. But in the US, this compromise happens inside the Democratic Party. And I think this leaves people feeling betrayed at times - their critical issues are compromised away "behind closed doors". It is easier to compromise if you feel your issues are clearly stated and heard and the compromise is out in the open. A thought.
2
Indivisible, Justice Democrats, OWS, BLM, Never Again, etc. are all movements of younger voters pointing left. We are frustrated with the fact that our voices aren't heard in the current Democrat Party. I think it's because the average age of Democrats in Congress is around 60 years old, many of them MUCH older. Those "leaders" are entirely out of touch with the actual concerns of the younger voters, and they simply don't care about our future. They seem to care more about holding the reigns of power until we have to pry them from their cold, dead hands.
I voted for Hilary, but she didn't speak to or for me. My vote was purely an effort to help defeat the Dumpster Fire.Protecting corporate interests doesn't do a thing to help people like me, and neither does war-mongering, or caving to anti-choice "Democrats" and funding their campaigns. If Democrats want my future votes, they will have to adapt and respond to my progressive, feminist, single mom concerns.
3
The movements you cite need to unite. That's the problem. There should only be one movement for Justice, period. That doesn't mean they can't still have separate events to highlight specific things, but they should all meet together regularly to outline specific plans to get rid of our current administration. They need to get together to establish a) that that is their goal, and b) how they will each contribute to getting there.
I think there's no Liberal Tea Party because Democrats care more about keeping the government running (however dysfunctionally) than the Republicans. We saw this in the unfair supression of Bernie Sanders campaign; we also see it in a greater fear and suppression of third party movements, such as the Green Party. As a Green, we see way more vitrioli from Democrats hoping we don't sway the election to some "bad" Republican than their similarly positioned Libertarians ... which is why, in part, the Libertarians have done better in recent years than Greens.
Pelosi's leadership of House Democrats is riding squarely on this fall's elections. This year presents the Democrats with the most favorable political environment for them in 10 years. If the Democrats nonetheless fail to win back the majority in the House, then I guarantee you that they will have a new House leader come January - and it's quite possible that Pelosi will decide to call it a career as well.
Interesting piece about the internal dynamics of the Republican and Democratic parties. But, as some of the other comments have pointed out, Grossman and Hopkins ignore the role that big money donors and corporate interests play in how the parties operate. The Op-Ed, in particular, fails to address how dependence on big donors (probably an unfortunate fact of life that will be hard to change in short-term) inhibit and constrain the Democratic party and most Democratic candidates from taking economic populist positions or adopt arguments against inequality that might be construed as anti-Wall Street or anti-business. Issues of inclusion, tolerance, and racial, gender, and sexual preference equality, on the other hand (and, as people elsewhere have written), do not threaten big donors' economic interests in the same way. One other point. There are plenty of Republican big money donors ready and able to finance the Tea Party and similar groups. Outside of a handful of exceptions, few big Democratic donors are willing to finance groups like Occupy Wall Street.
55
Both parties have plenty of huge donors, but when you splinter the issues, you splinter the support.
2
Nancy Pelosi is unchallenged as leader of the Democratic congressional delegation because nobody else can raise more money.
If I am not mistaken, you have defined neoliberalism.
1
...Or you could say that it’s the party of doing stuff vs the party of undoing stuff, the party of yes we can vs the party of no you can’t, the party of ‘party’ vs the party of poopers. The former may not need an ideology, as the authors point out, because there’s always plenty of stuff to do. The latter on the other hand, since they’re undoing stuff, need something to rally the troops. Hence the purity tests to make sure there’s plenty of rallying going on. Like tea parties. Now I think I’ve got it. Thank you for clarifying.
2
By definition, a focus on a specific group's issue leaves out everyone else for whom that may be important, but not a priority. So support gets diluted.
Dems need to emphasize and pitch what they will do for -all- Americans, in order to succeed---good jobs, an economy that rewards -all- stakeholders, not just ceo's and stockholders, and a justice system fair to all.
Once Dems are in office, then the specific groups can jump in and go to work---rather than the other way around.
The fundamental misunderstanding in this article is the belief the Democratic Party is at heart a "Left Wing" party - when it is, in fact, a party of the Center. Most "Liberals" are 'centrist' not 'leftist'. Most "Liberals" understand the need for compromise and education, acting through rational discourse and not heated emotional impulsiveness. This is part of the disparity between the two parties at the moment: one is rather hot headed and deceptive, the other desires progressive advance tempered by common sense. The real minority in the country are the "Leftists" - the Bernie acolytes - we are not a country of socialists - and their problem is, they want the "Ideal" and they want it now, but they don't have a workable plan to get there.
2
Complacency and the Democrats continually acting as if 'Common sense will prevail' has kept them from getting out in front of the issues like the Republican Party does so well and is why the Dems better be careful come November.
That said, I believe the Democrats need to get a War Room together and select leaders to trumpet their objectives, leaders who are top-heavy with charisma so to rally us and our strengths, thus portraying themselves-the Party- as the Party with the electorate's needs and wants at the core of their own beliefs.
Please take this advice or be prepared to disappoint us once again in 2018 and 2020.
2
Democrats once attracted a strong majority of the electorate - under the strong leadership of FDR. Of course, the difference was that the nation had just endured a destructive, cruel economic depression, and then suffered an attack by a clearly defined enemy. Galvanizing factors, both. But, as James Lee said in his earlier comment, FDR understood that the message must be made clear and simple, and delivered forcefully and consistently. Yes, the nation again suffered severely during the recent Great Recession, although, ironically, the damage was greatly limited by the very safety net enacted under FDR, a safety net now directly in GOP crosshairs. Our wars are now endless, our enemies ephemeral, dispersed, and too often cynically contrived. But none can doubt that "malefactors of great wealth" once again hold sway over our nation, and are determined never to relinquish even a modicum of control. We need a strong, charismatic leader who can once again help us see that we are fundamentally one interest group, stronger together in pursuit of our common interests. We had such a leader, less than two years ago. Unfortunately, for half the nation's voters he was simply the wrong color. And as a result we confront our destiny in greater peril than ever before in our history.
It's always going to be easier to unite people in the cause of protecting shared values than in forging a new vision that embraces an agenda of multiple interest groups, but both are possible- see Obama and JFK - but inspirational leadership's necessary to make it work - if Bernie was 55, he might have the ability, but for now it's wait and see......
There do tend to be two main ideological groups on the Democratic side; one which is interested primarily in the economic interests of the majority and in reversing the still growing inequality; and the other which is primarily interested in "social" matters such as opposing racism, xenophobia, misogyny and other "conservative" attitudes which the Republican party now relies on. Is there any reason why the party can't represent both groups? Yes, the main party establishment relies too much on big-money donations and other influence from corporations and the finance industries. Their influence, which is apparent in much of the media, tends to foment factionalism and of course the suppression of movements which aim to reduce inequality.
Note that the Tea Party was encouraged at first by big-money interests, but it has gotten somewhat out of control. Those interests are not likely to encourage any such rebellious movement in the Democratic party.
1
Democrats do nuance; today's Republicans do not. While nuance is important to those who think, it represents a vulnerability exploitable by and for those who do not. That is it in a nutshell.
3
Much of the way republicans have chosen to energize their base over the years has been to create a in group and stock fears about various out groups. When you have a base primed to view the world through this lens, its only a matter of time before they start looking at their own leadership with the same mind set. Turning their own political weapon on themselves.
2
What liberals -- even extreme liberals -- want to accomplish requires building coalitions and implementing programs with a lot of moving parts. You can't get there with "smash everything" rhetoric and behavior. That belongs to people who actually do want to demolish everything. On the right, those people found a home in the Republican Party. On the left, they tend to exist outside the Democratic Party structure, so they don't really affect the party much. Once in a while Fox will accuse "Democrats" of trashing a Starbucks, but the people involved are not exactly candidates for city counsel.
1
One thing I’ve noticed about some friends/colleagues who are left leaning. Each has a favorite “cause” and every candidate had better pass the test of that cause. If not, my friends look for another candidate or just give up.
Some of Bernie Sanders supporters were (are) that way. Although their passion for Bernie and his causes is admirable, they will accept no one but Bernie. If that’s not politically self destructive, I don’t know what is.
5
The authors are missing one important point: The Tea Party is heavily funded by the Koch Brothers and other wealthy right wing patrons. Their agenda and the candidates they fund is fixed, in both senses of the word.
Democratic fund raising, for the most part, is obtained from smaller, distributed contributors with varied interests. There is no single-funded "agenda".
8
There IS a "Tea Party" of the left. They are the Justice Democrats, who take no money from big donors or corporations, and who support progressive policies that favor all Americans' health, welfare, and prosperity, but not constant war, or self-dealing.
5
And Justice Democrats will never get media attention, and if they do, it will be mostly derisive, as we saw with the Times disgracefully biased coverage of the momentous Sanders campaign.
Basically, the Times and its stable of pundits want you to think that there is nothing to the left of the centrist Democrats.
1
The Democrats running for Congress, by and large, reflect the views of their constituencies. That's not quite the same as reflecting specific social groups. Currently, Congressional Democrats are a moderately leftish group, mostly from urban areas and well educated suburbs. If Democrats oust Republicans from thirty or forty or more purplish districts, as seems likely, the Democratic Party in Congress will have a majority that is a little more conservative than the Democratic minority is now. Moderate Conor Lamb resembles the candidates likely to oust Republicans throughout the country.
We'll see how Democrats handle the situation. If they can work together, respecting the diverse views and interests of the people they represent, they will achieve something. If they cannot work together, they will generate a Democratic Tea Party.
For the most part, Democrats don't need a 'Liberal Tea Party', since they tend to liberal and inclusive in the first place.
But if one were to argue that such a thing exists, they might go by another name -- like 'independents'.
At least that's the way it was looking like during the 2016 campaign and election for reasons that are already well-known, and unfortunately the result is why we've ended up with what we have in the White House today.
One can only hope that the 2018 and 2020 elections won't be a repeat of the same.
With the amount of mistrust and division that abounds these days, the country wouldn't be able to stand it.
2
"It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them."
Mark Twain
Twain called the result of this thinking "corn-pone opinions" relating to reluctance to rock the boat, stay with the majority & avoid the unknown. Both major political parties today are trying desperately to reach these individuals, many of whom can be labeled as independents, an increasing percentage of the electorate.
On the other hand, can it be that these independents are the key to sweeping change in that they've witnessed the failure of either party to deliver campaign promises and distrust both? They have seen even our Demo standard bearers fall prey to venality, affecting ostentation & shamelessly consorting with the plutocrats after leaving office or more blatantly, even before seeking election.
Can it be that in these intemperate times, that would have Twain reeling, "corn-pone opinions" might lead to a more just & fair society? The "big tent" may be more radical than many believe it to be.
2
We are dealing with the aftermath of the Cold War. In the early 20th century, several liberal thinkers in the U.S. regarded communism as a political movement that could improve the circumstances of the working class. They didn't yet know that the Soviet Union would become a dictatorship that would reward a wealthy elite at the expense of wider society. Perhaps they should have seen it coming, but that's a different argument. As the Soviet Union grew into a strong, atheist, anti-capitalist adversary to the U.S., it allowed Christianity and business to band together against a common foe. Cultural and economic conservatives wielded a powerful cudgel against progressive, liberal ideas and the pendulum swung far to the right. In the popular imagination, universities became ivory towers full of anti-American pinko communists. To be God-fearing, one also had to celebrate business interests. As the Cold War progressed, that confluence of religious faith and pro-business zeal became embedded in the U.S. consciousness. Prior to the 20th Century, religious zeal regularly spurred initiatives that did not dovetail with business interests. After the Cold War, religion in the U.S. has been thoroughly embedded with business, even though the dominant theme of the New Testament is that caring for others is more important than amassing wealth. Until business and faith are separated, the political left in the U.S. will continue to struggle.
we're also still dealing with the aftermath of the Civil War, with the right not only enmeshed with fundamentalist Christianity but also racism and visceral hatred of our federal government, which they see as antithetical to their way of life: religious, backward, traditionalist, racist, and rural.
News Flash: The progressive left is the liberal Tea Party. The left has always pushed ideological boundaries. They espouse individual freedoms and the interests of the masses. The Tea Party movement was reactionary as conservatism often is and sought to ratchet back the clock on many social and certain fiscal issues.
Progressives risk moving into untenable political ground as they battle to be lefterer than the next.
We should be developing policy that is sound for all Americans and seeks to maximize the general welfare.
1
Wishful thinking. There isn’t a liberal Tea Party because there aren’t enough Democratic incumbents to challenge and because so many Republicans are electing not to run. The fights over the future of the Democratic Party are being waged in primaries to challenge Republican held seats. The ideological divisions expressed by the Bernie Sanders campaign have not evaporated. The interests of Wall Street represented by Clintons, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are fundamentally antagonistic to those of the poor and working class people of all colors that the Dems have historically taken for granted. Those forces are gathering in groups like Our Revolution, Democratic Socialists of America, and Progressive Democrats of America and will be a potent factor incoming elections.
Liberals think future. The Republican tea party thinks ,debatable,the past. The tea party wants to go back to the early 19th century, while the Democratic Party wants to move in the 21st century and beyond. Tea partiers did not like the look of 21st century America. It scares them. This is why they live in rural and small town America. Trump promised them small town thinking was coming back. They fell for it. The only constant is change. Without it we wither away.
There are several reasons why there is no liberal tea party. First and foremost is that the liberals hate the Constitution, which the Tea Party and conservatives in general strive to protect. You are correct in stating that it's not about ideology, it's about conserving one of the very few forms of government in this world that actually work and greatly benefit its population.
Another obvious reason is that liberals all think the exact same way. Why form another party if everyone is already in agreement at every point? The dangerous side-effect of that group think is that it becomes intolerant of any who challenge it -- which has lead to our current predicament of attempted censorship in social media and on university campuses.
After falling from its Great Society peak (starting with the 1966 elections), Democrats have settled for making rapid progress on secondary issues (so-called culture war issues) and fitful progress on core issues (economic inclusion for working class and poor Americans; resolving long overdue justice for African Americans, largely created by the Democratic party's prior incarnations). And the GOP has been able to exploit this at most levels of government, even with losing the popular vote for the presidency six times out of the last seven presidential elections, and that one time (2004) the lowest majority margin for any reelection in generations).
We know what the problems are, but Democrats have yet to coalesce around solutions and a new generation of leadership to get out of the party's rut. I admire Nancy Pelosi for doing the difficult thing a legislative party leader ought to do while having a governing majority - take her caucus over the cliff to get at least the compromise that was Obamacare into law. But she, Sanders, Biden, Hoyer, Schumer, Warren et al. should be working hard to pull new leadership into place (I will be delighted, however, to see my Senator Warren chair the Senate Banking Committee, where she could do far more good than as a presidential candidate).
'Why There is no Liberal 'Tea Party'? It's simple. From an economic perspective the Left focuses on (i) confiscation (via steeply progressive taxes) of private sector wealth, and (ii) the redistribution of that private wealth to preferred groups and causes. (Apologies for the use of the word 'private' as I appreciate much of the Left believes wealth properly belongs to the state/collective, not the individual). Liberals cannot coalesce around a single 'Tea Party' equivalent group, as each of their factions wants the money for itself (ie, its own favored constituents, causes or both). As Margaret Thatcher once observed ('the only problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money') there is not enough money to go around. Admittedly, the original 'Tea Party' did have an easier job of it, as their members could all agree on an economic approach that saw the government extract less wealth from the private sector, so that individuals and businesses could keep more rather than less of the wealth they generated.
1
Well, you haven't had a good look upstate at the 24th Congressional district, I guess. However, what's driving this current situation is not just the Democratic party but forces that either overlap or go beyond it - independents, Greens, Bernie-Dems - who often don't particularly care about the future well-being of the party & in some cases would be happy to see it collapse. There is very much the seed of such a Dem Tea Party here, complete with (according to local headlines) locals "seething" at DCCC "meddling." As one the most hotly contested swing districts in the country, this is one that should be on your radar, I'd think.
1
The Republican Tea Party is largely an astroturf movement backed by the ultra-wealthy. Studies have shown that public policy favors the donor class; the Tea Party was manufactured to give politicians political cover while Fox News and the like forward stories about the Tea Party's political outrage.
What Liberal movements lack in financial backing, we make up for in sheer numbers and having truth on our side. We just have to act in a sustained way to reach our goals.
Nice article about Democrats (mostly), which seems to be a novelty in the New York Times these days. Not sure it is totally agree, however. We Democrats do have a set of core values that set us apart. For example, we pretty much all feel strongly about protecting people's rights, including women and minorities, and we universally oppose mass murder with guns. It's not totally about forming coalitions. Perhaps what we needed was a common enemy we could all agree to hate. That is no longer a problem.
It is relevant to mention that the Tea Party was founded and funded by the Koch organization. Despite what its members may have thought, it was a populist front for the now-successful effort to reduce taxes on the rich. Detail is in Jane Mayer’s Dark Money.
1
The Dems have a problem, a very large problem, recognizing that controlling the U.S. Senate requires a big tent with respect for many voices. Trump creates outrage on the left in the same way that a President Bernie Sanders would create outrage on the right. Our politics will continue to spiral downward until both sides become less self-righteous, doctrinaire "my way or the highway" institutions. Dems who stay home or vote for Jill Stein instead of Hillary may feel good about themselves but they, more than the tea party, are responsible for delivering President Trump to us. And let me say I am NO FAN of Hillary, and no fan of the Donna Brazile shenanigans to stifle the primary process. I am HOPEFUL that in the Congressional elections this fall the Dems will put these hard lessons to good use. But I'll believe it when I see it.
I remember a poll taken sometime during the presidential primaries in which republicans were asked whether they would rather nominate a candidate who could win the presidency or who “reflected what they believe”. It was the second choice that came out on top. They got both, but I find it a strange attitude that members of a party would base their choice on their feelings and not on the practical aspect of winning. It explains the party’s current situation. Republicans only know how to tear down, not build.
The Democrats are a big tent coalition party because the extremist ideologues of the right have given them. No other choice. In a parliamentary system we might have more parties forming coalition governments, but each with their own agenda. In America’s two party system we have one party committed to its ideology and a second trying to cover everybody else. That makes messaging and cohesion a bit difficult.
1
You explain here exactly why the DNC and the democrats deserve to be in the wilderness for the many years to come. They serve many factions of minor social and cultural interests. On matters economic, there isn't much by way of difference between them and the GOP. OK, them and the GOP of 10 years ago. They are fiscally conservative (won't even spend to spur the economy, like the GOP across the aisle), they kowtow to their donor's interests and they are in the pockets of various industry groups (Intuit, Prison industrial complex, Wall street, ...). Apart from that, they sound quite nice. They won't say nasty things, but they align with people who do.
1
What you have overlooked, is the role of the young. They are not only a big chunk of the electorate, they are also future voters. Democrats, as defined by official and formal party membership or those who donate to party candidates in elections, small and large, failed to give these young people their due recognition. (As in 2015-16 democratic party primaries). They were told repeatedly that the candidate they liked and loved, was not really a "democrat". Without truly defining what being a "democrat" means. Like when you are born, does the hospital birth certificate mention you are born D, not R? Is it not possible for someone who has traditionally voted democrat since age 18 or who is registered as a democrat, would choose to vote for an Independent or Libertarian or Green Party candidate, if his or her message resonates with them? Here in MA, a traditionally democratic state, we have frequently elected Republican governors (Romney, William Weld, Paul Cellucci Charlie Baker), without regret. And we work together with the governor, instead of against him. It is imperative that the democrats embrace the youth amongst us, without squishing squashing their dreams, like the party did so blatantly in the 2016 primaries, sheesh.
2
To imply that the Tea Party has been a "movement" of the Republican grassroots base is both inaccurate and misleading. Without Koch and other billionaire money fueling a small contingent of reactionaries, the Tea Party would not have become more than a political footnote. Not would it, of course, be so tightly connected to similarly promoted reactionary officeholders.
On the other hand, grassroots activism on the left, rises and falls in the absence of consistently large infusions of funds, and the links between progressive activism and the ideologies of officeholders are much more tenuous.
Moreover, mass mobilizations on the left—for example, the recent women's march—are ad hoc, often not focused on a single issue, lack mature organization and leadership, and thus fail to persist and succeed in achieving legislative and policy changes.
It seems to me that Mr. Grossmann and Mr. Hopkins have paid too much attention to ideological political history, what people think, and too little to institutional history, what they actually do.
1
The Democrats NEED a Tea Party. But, of course, one with progressive ideas at its core. It isn't a simple solution, but it is necessary.
I keep wondering where the wealthy Democrats are in this regard, given the threats posed by the right to our precious democracy.
It's imperative that progressives stop bringing knives to gunfights.
A discussion such as this one that makes no mention of Bernie Sanders and "Our Revolution" is flabbergasting but maybe not surprising. Noam Chomsky, among other very perceptive observers, accurately regarded Sanders' campaign in the 2016 primaries as a "remarkable phenomenon" eight years after Obama was supposed to deliver "hope and change." (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bernie-sanders-donald-... )
Obama couldn't admit to a certain lack of "hope and change," so he clung to his annointment of HRC as his heir. She nearly made it happen, but for certain Electoral College territories desperately in such need. Sanders continues to walk the talk through town hall meetings and many other endeavors. He and especially the young people with him are the coalition that may be referred to as a "liberal Tea Party." Given how Sanders was shunned (no exaggeration) by the Democratic Party leadership in 2016, I think it is very telling that Grossmann and Hopkins make no mention of him in the exact context of this opinion piece.
3
The most divisive aspect of American politics is that one party has, as its core driving principle, appealed to, encouraged, and accepted racism to convince a large number of voters to vote against their own economic interests.
2
The old people leadership caucus in the Democratic Party in the House needs to retire as leadership. Preferably before the election but definitely with a pledge to do so come January 2019.
2
Perhaps it is time for Mr. Grossmann and Mr. Hopkins to push aside the fascination that journalists have with the Tea Party and start looking at the hundreds of Indivisible groups across the country. Also of interest is the historical support that labor unions have given to the democratic party. The systematic attack on labor unions to produce a demise on their political abilities have left a vacuum in the democratic party. The use of language by the republican party such as "the attack on the working class" or "protecting American jobs for American workers" has divided these voters. The republican party does delivery in policy but it does deliver in ideology. Another topic that the authors should consider is the lack of leadership in the democratic party in recruiting of young leaders and working on campuses to strengthen the young democrats clubs. Pelosi is a very successful leader in passing policy and in political strategy in Washington D.C.; however, she and other party leader failed in creating a younger party. The democratic party does not need ideologues and divisions, like the republican party, they need to reconnect with the middle class, the younger generation and minorities to build trust in a positive political, social, and economic agenda for this country.
1
The tendency of liberals to split their time, energy and money in diverse ways, while conservatives tend to have a narrower focus is well explained in George Lakoff's excellent book, "Don't Think of an Elephant!". He also explains how the right has for decades studied and honed their skills in understanding how people think, and how to manipulate them. It's a short but vitally important book and I highly recommend people read it.
1
I suggest you read Jane Myers Dark Money to understand why the Right had a tea party and the Left has not. In essence, the Tea Party was not a spontaneous uprising but was instead coordinated into existence by big donors and a few organizers. For years, Koch, Scaiffe, Mellon, Bradley, etc.nfunded groups had advanced the ideology that Tea Party eventually adopted as their own. These plutocrats had wanted a mass movement and tried to create it for years. It took a couple of generations to get enough of the public convinced that policies that were good for the very rich were also good for Everyman. Now, imagine if the Left created massive funding, parallel in scale to what the far right has done. And use that funding to advertise and advocate policies beneficial to, say, all workers. This message would not take generations to take hold, it would take a few years, at most. This is because such a message resonates with most employees, who number in the hundred million range. If you fired up just 10 % per year, in two years, more than 20 million would be rallying. This would dwarf the stage managed, relatively small scale of the Tea Party, which was in the low single digit millions, at most. The Left, however, has not yet attempted what I am suggesting. Which is why the Left has not yet had its own Tea Party.
1
Increasing opportunity for all, refusing bigotry, protecting the environment, regulating capitalism so it does not crush workers and financial powers so they do not crush customers nor consumers, providing the necessities of life for those who cannot procure them alone, caring for the small or weak: these are not different causes that we pick up and put down capriciously. They are always our concerns, and many of us work where and when we can for each and all of them. It's just our responsibility as citizens and decent human beings. We don't need to march in lockstep like brain-implanted mice. We choose to do our duty for ourselves.
1
As Edward Kennedy said, paraphrasing George Bernard Shaw, in his eulogy for his slain brother Robert, "Some men see things as they are and say why? I dream things that never were and say why not?"
In other words, "I want my country back" is not in the liberal lexicon.
When I see bumper stickers shouting, "Proud To Be An American!" I reflect that I too am proud, albeit for different reasons.
This a country that has suffered through an impressive learning curve, one that called itself a republic in 1789, even though it was a male-dominated oligarchy.
This is a country that expanded its borders by massacring or isolating the native population.
This is a country where slavery was praised and given Biblical sanction by those calling themselves men of God.
Freedom for African Americans came in 1865; unions, which were "broken" by thugs in the employ of the same families who now rule the right wing, became part of the social fabric; women became full-fledged citizens in 1920.
Today, liberals are united against the Scott Pruitts of the world who ruin our environment while upgrading their ride; we are dismayed by the damage unlimited "campaign contributions" can do.
As opposed to the "other side," this side is four square behind freedom of expression, but committed to expose fraudsters and tricksters who mislead an under-educated public.
We are united because what we are for--George Bernard Shaw's vision--is far more powerful than anything we might be against.
2
I completely agree. But, if this is meant as a criticism of the Democratic Party, it is misguided. The Democratic Party is a center-left, pragmatic coalition of interests. In other words, it's a political science textbook example of an actual political party. It's not a bunch of angry lunatics or cult followers. That's why, even though I find myself often to the left of the party on a variety issues, I still support it, and consider myself a loyal member. In other words, I'm an adult, and I recognize that we are a large country with divergent ideas and multiple interests, and that these need to be taken into consideration as we try to move forward in a reasonably progressive direction to try to make the US a more prosperous, humane, and environmentally sustainable place.
2
Democratic pragmatism on center-left coalitions reflects political reality: US polls tend to show around 40% identify as conservative, around 35% as moderate, and 24% as liberal (that last figure is up slightly from historical averages). To win general elections, Democrats have to appeal to a majority of moderates, without losing liberals, to win. That's reality - and Democrats are more attuned to verifiable reality (in science, journalism, etc.).
1
This is pretty simple. Republicans today generally gravitate to power, typically measured through money. Democrats generally gravitate to people, which is about humanity, which is complex, subtle, and at its best beautiful. We should cherish, nurture and grow our capacity to be the party of people. When we lose the people, we lose elections and a lot more.
1
I respectfully disagree with this assessment. The left side has a Tea Party whose members are as uncompromising as the right: vengeful, angry Bernie-or-bust attitudes fueled by the ideological platform of self-centered identity politics.
I believe Trump is president because there is a Democrat Tea Party; one that is an equal and opposite reaction to the Republican TeaParty.
27
Diego, this is a misunderstanding and your mis reading "vengeful, angry Bernie-or-bust attitudes fueled by the ideological platform of self-centered identity politics."
NYT totally bought into that narrative and delivered to us a very biased, opinionated and non objective coverage of the election.
15
I think it is people like this commenter, with their sanctimonious and ill-informed nonsense that will come to define the fall of the Democrats. For these folks, the New Deal ideas that Bernie and his wing of the party furthers is anathema. Never mind the fact that the New Deal comes from FDR, that Democratic champion. These people are married to the Clintons and the Obamas and never saw a trade deal they didn't like, never disagreed with naked corporateerism in the name of capitalism, and never disagreed with a Wall streeter. Why not? They made their money furthering such naked greed. They'd sooner return to the brash economic policies of the failed centrist wing of the party than see reason.
Their view, however, is dominant, and powerful. That is why the democrats will fail over and over again until they will be marginalized to such an extent (they already have: how many state legislatures are run by democrats?) that they become more pointless in national politics.
Diego, then perhaps you will see light, but given Chuck and Nancy's activities in the party, probably not. Meanwhile, you will go to bed thinking you are right. And the next day you will wake up again furthering this claptrap excuse of a comment. And what is more, the NYT will select your comment. What a joke!
15
I beg your pardon, Diego. I was a Bernie enthusiast (even at age 79). My goal was to ensure the replacement for the Supreme Court was not a man like Gorsuch. I would never vote for a man like Trump and did in fact vote for Clinton, as many of those I know did. I keep hearing that those who were Bernie supporters jumped clear over to the opposite side to vote for Trump. That is just incredibly ridiculous. You are wasting your time. Admit it. She was a very bad campaigner with the coup de grace being Comey, not Bernie.
15
"Democratic voters tend to view politics as an arena of intergroup competition rather than a battlefield for opposing philosophies, and the party is dominated by an array of discrete interests that choose candidates on the basis of demographic representation and capacity to deliver policy."
I'm heartened by the Democrats staying relatively united and helping candidates focus on their local issues. Imposing national litmus tests on state candidates can be thorny, as we've seen in the Democratic upsets over establishment GOP candidates closely aligned with Washington.
I hope it can continue. For now, anyway, the fights between the "Bernie" wing and more centrist Democrats seem to have gone away.
Only by keeping their eye on the ball can Dems regain control of Congress. So far, I think, Tom Perez has done a good job of overseeing and supporting the November races.
"All politics is local" seems understood by Dems over the GOP. We saw that in spades when Washington was sending in high-profile administration officials to pump up Roy Moore, while Doug Jones enjoyed visits from celebrities with strong roots in Alabama and knowledge of state issues.
I just hope Dems can hold it together until November.
1
There is, of course, another explanation: the likes of Pelosi, and the funders who promote the likes of Pelosi may abhor Trump personally, but his policies, including tax cuts and war mongering, favor them. They're doing just dandy.
For some Democrats, this is best of all possible worlds: virtue waving rights, while they clean up on public policy they can't admit to loving.
We also know how a true grass roots and thoroughly reasonable liberal insurgency -- quite unlike the Koch and Mercer-financed Tea Party -- is met within the Democratic party, and in this very newspaper: the Sanders campaign being case in point.
As has pointed out before, Republicans fears their base. Democrats despise theirs. It makes for a big difference.
Republicans venerate power and authority. It doesn't seem to matter what one does with that authority these days, so long as one can consolidate and wield it. There is some lip service to small government but in practice that just means paving the way for wealth consolidation, and more power. Carpe diem. Government is a means to means. The ability to hoard those means at all costs is seen as respectable and good. It's naked capitalism, really. The result is strife, in the party and in society.
Democrats see governance as means to ends. In practice, the nature of politics is to solve or mitigate social problems; politicians who do this successfully are tacitly allowed to take the spoils of office but there's a test of impact that must be passed first. It's messier, but gives at least a veneer of cohesion.
Democrats see politics as a means of promoting the general welfare and securing the common defense. Republicans see politics as a means of imposing their religious and ideological views on others and installing a plutocracy. Not the way it used to be. The way it is.
Overly rosy view in a cold dreary Spring, says this Democrat. There is no Democratic tea party because the politics of group identity won’t let one develop. I don’t see too much working together or ideological alignment among the Ds. Unity in opposition to Trump is all we’ve got. On this one, the Republicans are correct about what’s wrong with the Democratic Party.
There's a liberal Tea Party. We just aren't Democrats (currently much less than 1/3 of the electorate). Many are Independents, we voted third party or write-ins last election, we stayed home on the couch, many are millennials. Don't believe this or make any adjustments to the Democratic MO your peril. Because that belief worked out well for your party over the last 4 elections, right?
1
As a Democrat I have never viewed politics as an arena of intergroup competition and I don't know many who do. We do not see politics as a zero-sum game. The civil rights movement, to take one example, did not simply redistribute social benefits from white people to blacks and other minorities. Rather, it allowed society to benefit more fully from the energies and creativity of a significant portion of its population, expanding economic and social opportunities for everyone.
The GOP's goals are not actually "reducing the scope of government and reversing cultural change." Their goal is to ensure that as much as possible all economic gains continue to go to the very rich. Reducing the scope of government is just a means to that end, and fueling the culture war — along with gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement — is a cynical tactic to attract enough voters to stay in power.
Our accountant told us a story about a guy he knew who lost a lot of money in the great recession — he was down to $50M. He was talking with a friend who had not lost so much, who pointed out that he would probably have to sell his private jet and get rid of the house in the Hamptons and the chalet in Switzerland, and the cottage on Maui, and maybe even lay off his chauffeur. After thinking about all this he said, "You're right. I'm broke!"
That's the way these people think.
1
"That's the way these people think."
Hillary Clinton being one of those people, remember her claim:
"We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jun/10/hillary-c...
2
In the years before Reagan, politicians would explain their membership in the Republican Party by referring to the party's "principles" (never spelled out) while Democrats would refer to their party's "programs." Reagan put such an emphasis on principles that Democrats began saying they had principles too. But this op-ed shows the split remains. Being principled sounds more high-minded but focusing on programs gives politicians something to deliver.
"The Democrat Party is an organized coalition of social groups.". I really like that. I often have debates and sometimes even envy the GOP's blind faith of falling in line, while Democrats fall in love. This article helped me reframe that argument. The problem we have still as Dems is that we are organized but separate. Our coalitions are in silo's and we lack the cohesiveness to bind those social groups into a single voting majority. I think and hope Trump is that missing ingredient to get those disparate groups for social good to stand together against the worst possible president, man, leader, husband, father in modern history.
1
I think this goes back to the fact that Democrats are flexible, open-minded and not change adverse on average. The core set of values are essentially liberal. Liberal meaning the ideas of the enlightenment. Consensus driven, evidence based and open to change as our understanding of the world changes. The constitutions of the 18th and early 19th century are core examples of that philosophy. They are documents that have at their core a dedication to "the will of the people" and can be revised as the world changes. They are not the static rule based systems that marked the governance of monarchs and religions. The ideologies of the right are essentially monarchical and patriarchal.
1
Paul Ryan did not announce his resignation from the House, he announced he would not seek reelection. There is a significant difference.
It's relatively easy to form coalitions and work together when you have a "common enemy" that is in the majority. It's relatively easy to accept another interest group's agenda when you're not really in a position to act on it. If/when the Democrats regain control of Congress and the presidency, then we'll find out just how well-equipped they are to make the coalition effective.
"Democratic voters tend to view politics as an arena of intergroup competition rather than a battlefield for opposing philosophies, and the party is dominated by an array of discrete interests that choose candidates on the basis of demographic representation and capacity to deliver policy."
That, in a nutshell, is why the Democratic Party is inherently democratic, while the GOP is dangerously susceptible to autocratic and plutocratic impulses.
Conservative politics in the US was hijacked by entertainers on radio and TV who were willing to dispense with truth and pragmatism to appeal to the basest instincts of the less enlightened in society.
The ‘Tea party’ was transformed from a few zealots to a significant movement because Fox News covered them in the nascent stage with Sean Hannity actively promoting their events which would have hardly been noticed without his national audience.
The people running today’s Republican Party aren’t ideological, and either are the 80% of rank and file Republicans who approve of Mr. Trump.
The left is fundamentally different from the right. The right is a fairly unified group (i.e., it has a fairly homogeneous religious white rural base, supported by a largely white upper class that funds electoral efforts). They can more easily coalesce into a singular entity, like a "Tea Party Movement".
The left, on the other hand, consists of groups of people who don't necessarily like each other: white coastal educated elites, Latinos (a super diverse group ideologically), Asians (also), Blacks, and the multiracial working poor. These groups don't necessarily see themselves as part of a cohesive entity, and therefore are not likely to form a singular movement. That said, they are an enormous block of voters and consumers.
Republicans cannot hold the Presidency on ex-Tea Party efforts alone. After Trump is gone, they will have to connect with Latinos and Asians.
As a well-known social critic said (about 2000 years ago): “can ye not discern the signs of the times?” There is a definite trend toward pragmatic problem solving and away from ideology. The asymmetry in the 2 parties reaction to this is buried in the GOP strategy of the last 35 or so years. They consciously or otherwise decided that a rigid, unyielding position was the best approach to popularity. Simplistic, stereotyped positions were also easier to promote. In addition, venomous distain for anything outside this thought bubble was the battle plan.
Then reality caught up. As the world of science tells us this kind of thinking eventually leads to ruin. Now the Demos. are not paragons in this drama but they have managed to keep a greater sense of logical thinking. Such a position carried Ralph Northam and Conner Lamb to victory. It remains to be seen how all this will play out but at the moment the genesis of the current picture seems quite clear.
1
"The Tea Party movement reflected a popular dissatisfaction with cultural change, of which Mr. Obama’s election was a powerful symbol" , say the authors.
The observed reality of that animus toward President Obama is that the Tea Party just hated the idea of a black man as the POTUS. All the high-minded words to the contrary, the reason for the Tea Party is clear
-- the Tea Party is simply a modern version of the Confederates who betrayed our Constitution in the name of racism.
Let's not pretend otherwise. To do so is to close our eyes to the observed facts. The dots connect themselves.
2
Republicans control the White House, both houses of Congresss, the Supreme Court along with a majority of state executive mansions and legislatures because the Republican Party is the preferred partisan political choice of the white American majority. In the 2008, 2012 and 2016 Presidential elections the Republican candidate won 57%, 59% and 58% of the white vote.
But the white majority is aging and shrinking with a below replacement level birthrate. Along with a decreasing life expectancy due to alcoholism, drug addiction, depression and suicide they are desperate and fearful about their current and future socioeconomic political and educational status.
While the white minority is getting younger and growing along with the non-white minority. They are hopeful and positive about their current and future socioeconomic political and educational status.
1
"most Republican politicians, activists and voters view their party as existing to advance the conservative cause."
Not at all. The prime movers of the Right are devoted to reducing taxes on their wealthy patrons and eliminating laws restricting the corporations the .1% own or control. Using their own news stations they promote a hot-button agenda of thinly veiled racism, anti-abortion rhetoric, the "they're coming for your guns!" fearmongering and similar tactics to stir up fear and hatred among Republican voters.
1
Oh, phooey. Why is there no liberal Tea Party? Because there are no liberal Koch brothers grabbing individual activists and financing them from grass roots all the way to the doorways of power.
1
First you have to ask why The Tea Party exists.
Answer - the Koch Brothers bought and paid for it - to increase and consolidate their personal power and wealth.
8
Liberals are lazy. Liberals are divided. Liberals do not have donor like Tea Party had Koch brothers. Liberals have no news media like FOX TV and right wing talk radio. Liberals have no Rush Limbaugh , Hannity and Mark Levin. Conservatives are militant and regimented which liberals can never dream even.
1
“Because their goals of reducing the scope of government and reversing cultural change are difficult to achieve.....”
Give me a break, NYTs!
GOP goals and ambitions have gone far past the point of being some kind of alternative high minded vision for the future of America.
The goals of the low-minded GOP of today is advancing nativism and racism, looting budgets and decency for personal gain and conducting business with foreign adversaries to promote gun-wielding right wing extremism.
Waiting for the lefty-liberals to even things out with counterbalancing liberal extremism is simplistic and ridiculous. Stupid, in fact.
The solution to today’s spectacular problem lies with all those in the middle, not with the few on the fringes.
3
Republicans are the spoiled little brat who cheats on the sandlot game, breaks the neighbor's window, then runs home to daddy for protection. The democrats are the rest of the kids left bewildered on the field.
3
Not sure what a 'tea party' really is. Is it a one or two-issue affair? Do we need to simplify citizenship in order for people to get involved? What a hideous thought that is.
Democrats are fine; but Americans are not. The people who jerk back and forth between values and policies get what they vote for: chaos. We go from Carter to Reagan, from Obama to Trump. What a worthless wad we are.
One constant has been the Republican movement towards richer rich people. Now, the working class Republican will deny this, but they really can't. Tax cuts are what that party is all about; & that's the great destruction they've done with Trump (with ecological and moral vacuum's apparent, too).
Tax cuts for the rich. Show the graphs. Show the graphs of what has happened since Reagan & how the rich are so much more powerful & controlling than before, & how the working people are struggling.
Yes, maybe, keep that simple: economic devastation, plutocracy, wage/wealth deterioration.
Democrats just need to stand tall & speak truth. That hasn't worked in a while, but that fault lies in our very poor excuse of a democracy. We're so dumb, so easily seduced, so eager for easy answers & prideful lies. Enter, the lying, bully, supported by the right-wing media, conservatives & evangelicals: Trump.
Remind us of his worst words & actions. I always remind people of his draft-dodging, womanizing & calling McCain and POWs, 'not' heroes. Sick. Much more, of course.
Democrats; just speak and stand.
2
The comments bring to mind W's statement that the reason Al Qaeda hated us was because we were so free (and good, etc.)
Commenters claim that the reason there's no liberal Tea Party is because liberals "believe in the rule of law [and/or science]", "believe in justice and fairness" and "stand firmly against racism".
They would come out foursquare for motherhood, except that that might offend gay male parents.
These silly, self-congratulatory retorts are merely preaching to the choir. They convince no one who is not already convinced. Sadly, that is the way of our political discourse.
2
But there is a liberal tea party, or at least a leftist one. Look at Bret Weinstein and other self-described liberals on college campuses or in the body of reform movements like BLM—one word said against the orthodoxy and you’re out (with gangs of students hunting for you in Weinstein’s case) for all time, an unperson.
Just because it doesn’t have a cute name or hasn’t fully emerged into the spectrum visible to the NYT doesn’t make it any less real. There is a self-policing, purifying movement of far-left young (for the most part) people who think hurt feelings should carry jail time. Get ready to reap the whirlwind on that one.
1
Like the old saying that you shouldn't go to war unless the reason could fit onto a bumper sticker (Remember Pearl Harbor!), the same holds true in politics.
Trump found his bumper sticker: MAGA. It carried him to victory.
What is the Democrat's bumper sticker? Dump Trump? That's a puny sticker. We'll just get a more effective Trump if that's all we do.
My personal Democrat bumper sticker has always read: "I vote to protect the vulnerable."
But I don't see that as applying any longer to the Democratic Party. Instead, I see it as not standing for anything except for endorsing a lot of self-identified interest groups' anger.
I have voted Democrat for 45 years. I'm not committed to doing that this year. I will vote for someone who is a centrist, right or left. Someone who respects all people and who realizes that the purpose of politics is not to give away money to the rich and to those who will not work.
1
Dems really aim at the common good, and they do not undertand either stupidity or double talk. They may be too naive to be in politics. It is a wonder why they do not use the Russian connection. Are they waiting to get evidence? Have they not realized that evidence is superfluos? What you need is constant repetition of what is good for you. They need some Hannities. Less soul and more ham and fat.
Apparently you missed a little thing called the Bernie Sanders candidacy. DNC did a god job of squashing it when needed.
1
It's seems to be an argument for winning in November. However, if the local candidates begin talking about minority rights and more immigration and no wall in purple and red districts, they will lose. They will have to lie about gun rights etc and supporting Trump like Conor Lamb in order to ecke out a close win against a weak Republican candidate. That won't be easily repeated.
You’re kidding, right?
1
It's called the Coffee Party USA.,
http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/
“Yet there has been no evidence of a national, ideologically motivated rebellion among Democratic primary voters, interest groups or donors.”
There is now – the Movement for a People’s Party
https://www.forapeoplesparty.org/
1
This article is poorly written and lacks clarity. Are Grossman and Hopkins suggesting there should be a Democratic Tea Party? Are they suggesting this is a weakness on the part of the Democrats?
They mention that Dems are not focusing on "purging impure incumbents" as if a form of anorexia is just what the doctor ordered for the Democrats. They also mention a "liberal purification of the Democratic Party" and that there is no evidence of an ideologically motivated rebellion. Sounds like claptrap to me.
The Tea Party was formed, thanks to dark money from the Koch brothers right after Obama's election. Members tend to be white, male, older than 45 and wealthy. That is exactly who the Republican party represents.
The Tea Party and Republicans believe in lower taxes and lowering the deficit. Trump's tax plan adds 1.7 trillion to the deficit which was at 587 billion at the end of Obama's presidency. The tax cuts will benefit the rich. No surprise there.
Why would Democrats want a Tea Party movement? There is enough polarization in politics.The Dems are united in their principles to raise incomes for the middle class, protect voting rights, to fight against inequality and to provide affordable health care for all Americans. This is anathema to all Republicans who want to dismantle government agencies and reduce entitlement programs.
I say hooray there is no Democratic Tea Party. We must be doing something right.
46
I agree. This is probably the poorest writing I've come across so far in the WaPo. It's impossible to tell exactly what point the authors are trying to make. Bad job, guys.
1
To Portolano: I kept reading the article over and over thinking I wasn't understanding it and then I realized the authors were not clear themselves on what their objective was in the piece. I am surprised the Times published it.
The Tea Party was established by the Koch brothers to exploit gullible people's prejudices to obtain their desired government of, by, and for the wealthiest. At their first convention, they paid Sarah Palin $200,000.00 for a speech. That is not a grass roots movement.
There will never be a liberal equivalent of the Tea Party because liberals don't mindlessly parrot talking points fed to them by wealthy plutocrats. Liberals can regain power if they run smart campaigns that address voters' real concerns. As they recognize, campaigns must be tailored to the voters of the jurisdiction. There is no one size fits all.
"Most Republican politicians, activists and voters view their party as existing to advance the conservative cause." This, of course, is nonsense unless you define "conservative" simply as representing the interest of big business and rich individuals. That's all the Republican Party has stood for since 1877; it has just gotten more blatant, and the group they represent has gotten smaller as a percentage of the population. I realize that the majority of Republican voters do not recognize this obvious truth. This piece gets closer on the Democrats. They basically represent all non plutocrats, and that is a diverse group. It is pretty clear that right now the Democratic Party lacks competent leadership, a fact seen most clearly in Nancy Pelosi continuing in her position. My prediction is that Republicans will continue to control the government in spite of the damage they have done because their opponents are too self righteous to engage in real politics.
A good question, inadequately answered.
A better question is why are there no liberals at all—anywhere”?
Perhaps a paraphrase of a conclusion drawn in “Neoconservativism: A history:”
“Liberals march and conservatives murder.”
People are afraid to be liberal—you can get shot..Medgar, the Kennedy's, Martin, Gabrielle Giffords...
1
Relatively good analysis of the playing field with no clear understanding of the game. Yes, the left lives in silos. Its a function of fundraising. The cause or identity overshadows a paradigm campaign because the hierarchy of the left is duplicitious. The right is simpy galvanized by said issues, while funded by monstrous billionaire villians that have been playing inside pool for generations. Their underlying bond is served by the quid-pro-quo, i.e. low taxes and no regulation for the top of the pyramid to gurantee a semi-white nationalist state for the base. The fundamental problem on the left from a funding standpoint, is the democratic party, is largely funded by Wall Street or Tech and both are semi-libertarian in the economic sense while loosley affiliated with identity politics. Obama, Holder, and Stanly O'Neal may be African American, but whose side were they on when the house of cards came down? Bernie figured it out but was undermind by the Brutas/Clinton wing and unfortunately, he caved. The whole thing is insanity, and may be that way for some time until somebody has the cohones to step forward with the truth. The question is, do any in contention understand the truth? Not if your funding depends on you not understanding it.
Not to mention that liberals are much less into dressing up in period costumes with tri-cornered tin hats.
2
"Dissatisfaction with cultural change"---what a risible code word for "fear of dwindling white male dominance."
2
"I am not a member of an organized political party. I am a Democrat." Will Rogers
It is intellectually dishonest to discuss the differences between the republican and the Democratic party without any mention of the republican propaganda/noise machine that is F(alse)ox news.
Not to mention the police state mentality that has sprung up with the rise of the right wing: Police never really harassed tea partistas, even when they where armed; whereas the police harassment of the Occupy Wall Street movement was over the top.
What I am hoping for, and counting on, is that those on the left will be satisfied with some small victories these next few election cycles, instead of the giant victory of a "New Left' party.
The rush to oust establishment democrats like Al Gore and Hillary Clinton has given us Guantanamo Prison, the Iraq war, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, trillions of dollars in debt and deficit, and possibly 9/11.
Republicans, for 50 years, have united around fear and hatred (mostly of dark skinned people but change in general) this year the thinking voters need to send the party to the dust bin of history.
Vote for democrats like your life and the lives of your children depend on it. Because they do.
Let’s be honest, the liberal tea party would be just an Indy coffee shop
13
Nothing wrong with an Indy coffee shop. It won't bust the budget and double the deficit. And it won't demonize immigrants or drain the public coffers with crony capitalism. Sounds pretty harmless to me.
2
This is just a way of saying that Dems don't have their act together. Democrats need to convey a shared moral vision, with policies that logically extend from that vision. We all know the components of those policies and that vision. No current dem leader, other than Bernie, is articulating that vision effectively.
2
Arguably, the Republicans gave up on politics a long time ago. Politics entails competition, but also compromise. Politics is possible only when we acknowledge that whatever differences and disagreements set us apart we are embarked on a common enterprise. Even when partisanship is intense, for there to be politics we must recognize members of the other party as fellow citizens. This is what makes compromise possible and electoral defeat tolerable.
Democrats still practice politics, both among themselves, as the article describes, and in their competition with Republicans. Republicans, however, have abandoned politics for something more akin to war. In their eyes, the exercise of power is legitimate only when it is exercised by Republicans. Hence their refusal even to consider a nomination to the Supreme Court made by a sitting Democratic president. Hence candidate Trump's statement that he might not accept the results of the 2016 election if he lost, and President Trump's insistence that he lost the popular vote only because "many millions" of illegal ballots were cast for his Democratic opponent.
Republican warriors have shown time and again that they will do whatever it takes to win, the rule of law and democratic norms be damned. Small wonder that the party is plagued by internecine conflict. It's not just a product of ideological extremism. It's the logic of war applied to the party's internal disputes. War requires enemies and enemies must be defeated.
All Democrats. however you label the distinct "groups," have one thing in common: We believe government of, by and for the people is meant to represent, protect and benefit ALL the people. And most importantly, that good government is a force for good in the lives of all citizens. Today's Republicans do not believe in our government, except when it comes to enabling and protecting capitalists to do as they want to further enrich themselves. If it were left to Republicans, we would be Global America Inc., governed by a board of directors we can't choose, that controls every aspect of our lives, from food, water, and healthcare, to finance, communication, education, transportation and housing. Ask a Republican today, "What good is our government?" and you will probably hear a long silence before they come up with something like, "Protecting our individual rights and freedoms." If you follow up with, "Protecting them from whom?", they will have to say, "From government." For Republicans, there are no threats to liberty and life except government. Government is always "the enemy." Capitalists are the good guys who can do no wrong to workers and consumers, to the water we drink and the air we breathe, to racial and religious minorities or to women and gays, to small business owners and small farmers, to sick, old or disabled people. In short, there IS a Democratic ideology. It is simply that we need government to create and maintain a more just and humane society.
Unlike Republicans, Democrats have long thought of political change and public policy focused on the federal government, a vestige of the New Deal. Trump has forced leading Democrats to now think at the state and local level, even to the point of embracing state's rights. Hopefully, this will expand the framework for liberalism, and needed change might happen sooner within the party.
It strikes me that the best and simplest course for the Democratic Party would be to promote itself as, and to actually become, the "Party of Government That Works for All the People". This would echo much of what FDR achieved with the New Deal. That era, along with FDR's policies in pursuit of a "Great Society", created much of what Americans on both sides of the aisle hold dear: Social Security and Medicare, just to name two.
Of course, for the Democrats to once again become the Party of the People would mean that the Democratic Party leadership would have to turn its back on Wall Street as it once turned its back on organized labor.
The Republicans have become treasonous and the Democrats have become soul-less. As far as I'm concerned, it's third-party time.
The Tea Party was created to generate anger towards a Democratic party that was rapidly gaining momentum. It worked, and we are suffering the results.
Fortunately, we do not need a left-leaning Koch Brothers equivalent to manufacture anger towards what the GOP is doing to us; they are quite proficient at accomplishing that on their own. The real question, then, is why the Democrats have not created a more powerful message going into the midterms.
Sadly, I believe the answer is that a significant portion of the party is not terribly different than the GOP, especially when it comes to coddling their donors. They do not create a message about restoring economic equality because they cannot, not without alienating their money supplies.
So we are left with a few lone champions to rally around (most of which are notably not supported by the DNC).
Please keep it simple. At this point, Americans desperately want a government that delivers -- Truth, Competence, and a Fair Shake.
The authors ignore the fact that Democratic Party bosses have successfully crushed progressive movements within the party for years, from Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition to Bernie Sanders campaign.
The last two Dem presidents have been particularly reluctant to back progressive economic policies and particularly receptive to Republican policies. Clinton signed the Republican bills that gutted our already meager welfare system, ended banking regulations and began mass incarceration.
Obama embraced the Republican Health care proposals of the Heritage Foundation which formed the basis of ACA. To his credit, he added some consumer protections but he strengthened the hand of the private insurers at a time when a majority of the public wanted single payer.
Obama later proposed Social Security cuts and signed a Republican bill cutting food stamp payments during the depths of the Great Recession.
As a result of Dem Party centrism, they have become irrelevant bystanders in all three branches of government and at the state level.
7
"The Democratic Party, by contrast, is organized..."
No. It's not. If there was a Liberal Tea Party, there would need to be 6,429 Liberal Tea Parties. That's what makes it "inclusive."
There is a liberal Tea Party -- Sanders, Cynthia Nixon, etc. But the authors are right. A strong left, focused on bread and butter issues, has been almost non-existent in the U.S. for decades. Instead there have been an array of issue based groups -- environment, feminism, black lives matter, LGBT, anti-militarist.
In the 30s the strong left was socialist and communist.They forced FDR to the left. Sometimes they even got elected themselves, in surprising places like Oklahoma.
What happened? After WWII the U.S. economy was incredibly strong. Everybody else had been destroyed. The working class, especially whites, were doing well. This made it possible to purge leftists from union leadership. The unions became apolitical and often dominated by gangsters.
In the 60s the left became focused on civil rights and anti-war activities. It was something minorities and university students did. The left lost its base with the white working class. Poor whites in the South always sided with the slave owners against their own economic interests. Racism trumped economic self-interest. They were Democrats and so were northern workers, a strange alliance. But in the civil rights era they all went Republican.
The Republicans played their hand well. FDR era social programs became branded as handouts to undeserving minorities. Big government was the problem.
Bernie represents a return to working class leftism. But strong left-wing Democratic populism is still very weak.
1
First, Left and Liberal are not synonyms. Liberal looks like Left only if you're looking at the spectrum of American political ideology from the conservative end.
Liberalism, a centrist position, stands for individual rights within a market system governed by the rule of law. The Left, in contrast, often rejects the individual in order to focus on the interests only of select demographic groups.
Thus, besides whether to go with the old guard in 2020 (e.g., Sanders, Warren) or younger blood (e.g., Booker), the Democrats must decide whether to take a class based approach (e.g., focusing on the interests of the whole working or middle class, regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender) or embrace the identity politics that has left the Democrats in the political wilderness, notwithstanding the train wreck that is the Republican party.
Around the time Steve Bannon left the White House last year, one of the regular NYT op/ed writers published a piece called "What if Steve Bannon is Right?" By this he meant, "What if Bannon is right that when the Democrats embrace race and gender identity politics, the Republicans win?"
I hope the Democrats choose correctly, or we may be looking at eight years of Trump.
9
It's hard to believe this question is really being asked. The Tea Party is a group of like minded ideologues. The left is a group of groups, each vying for their special perch of victimhood. I say this as a feminist, a centrist, a person who no longer thinks of herself as a member of either political party (formerly a Democrat).
This newspaper, my hometown paper, is an instrument that helps legitimize and keep that weakness going, constantly celebrating our minuscule differences until they are a true gaping wedge among splinter groups. (For example, "Beyonce is heroically not afraid to be a black performer"??? Are any of our black performers afraid to be black? Or do we want everybody to be expressing their put-upon splinter group 24/7 to be "legitimate." These kinds of stories are obviously rewarded at the Times. They are not rewarded with solidarity at the ballot box or in the marketplace of usable, relevant and actionable ideas for a heterogeneous country.
2
"The Tea Party movement reflected a popular dissatisfaction with cultural change,"
I don't think they were that sophisticated. The Tea Party reflected the desire for faux-patriot dress up. Cosplay with a putative cause. Posturing posers, just like the Republican Party that spawned them.
1
My head almost exploded when the DNC pulled its dirty tricks and knocked Bernie out of the ballpark. Hillary Clinton is more like a Republican than a Democrat and so was her husband. Obama was a big disappointment by the way he caved to the Republicans on healthcare, extending the war in Afghanistan and almost everything else. His campaign promises meant nothing. I miss being involved with the Working Families Party since I retired down here. That party is the last refuge for truly progressive people, and I would like to see them become a national party and wipe out the Neo-liberal Democrats.
40
Continuing the fight for a 2016 Bernie Sanders' Democratic nomination is "spitting into the wind". Despite Sec. Clinton's flaws as a candidate and the Democratic leadership's tone-deaf and blindness to voter needs which then were untouched by her (their) campaign, the undeniable fact is she is a Democrat and Sen. Sanders is not. A party which nominates a non-party member might as well have its own "going away" funeral.
I remain grateful to Sen. Sanders for his contributions to the issue debate throughout his terms and in 2016, but please, give up the fantasy that he would have been the 2016 Democratic nominee for President.
If you don't want to support the current political organization of a two party system with contributions from minor parties, consider working for a better system which US voters would accept. Once the one-party (Republican) control of states and Congress is moderated by removing their extra-Constitutional barriers to voting (voting ID, extreme gerrymandering, removing voting places and hours, etc) the normal balance of two parties may be restored.
11
This "Hillary is a Republican" nonsense needs to stop and it needs to stop now. You have legitimate complaints in your post and invalidate it with your hyperbole. Here's a clue: if Hillary were indeed a Republican she would - wait for it, wait for it - be registered as a Republican and would have sought political office as a Republican. Just because you are to the left of Clinton does not give you the right to label her as something she is not.
And yes, your attitude is the reason we have an ignoramus in the White House right now. Your desperate need for ideological purity has landed us in a hot mess right now.
19
Oh please. I've had it up to here with the Bernie Sanders was cheated argument. For one thing, Bernie Sanders ran as a Democrat, but is still not a member of the democratic party. So until he joins the party, any further argument about the nomination being stolen from him is just sour grapes. Additionally, politics is blood sport, and if Bernie Sanders didn't have the standing within the Democratic party to go up against the Clinton machine, then that's Bernie Sanders problem, and not the problem of the Democratic Party. Please go find another hobby, because the rest of us are still trying to fend off the worst nightmare in the history of our country, that was elected, in no small part thanks to the Bernie Sanders supporters, who took their toys and went home and apparently didn't show up on on election day because of a perceived pique with the Democratic Party.
11
Yes, doing something is much more challenging than doing nothing.
The reason there is no organized liberal tea party is that right wingers love authoritarians. It’s my way or the highway and they love ideology, the more pure the better. They even elevate ideology above the needs and importance of actual human beings. The Tea Party presented a more pure ideology and even though it would take away people’s healthcare and reduce revenues that fund infrastructure and education average people would sacrifice themselves on the altar of a more pure ideology.
Lefties despise authoritarians and instead of being told how it’s going to be insist on being heard and adding their thoughts to solutions. In fact, lefties often eat their own leaders. Lefties are more concerned with the suffering of people due to injustice and inequalities and so they undermine any ideology that doesn’t take alleviating the suffering for people seriously. Unlike right wingers lefties don’t follow or care to obey and rebel against marching in line.
57
I disagree. All people like simple answers. The Republicans have 2 messages: we want OUR money (aka Daffy Duckism, Me Firstism, Trumpisim) and we want to go to heaven (and there's no better way than preventing the slaughter of unborn people).
Most importantly, given Citizen United, Donor Class investments in gaming the system have had a unbelievable ROI. Check the results of the Tax Bill for the Koch Bros as an example.
The Democrats have no such positive feedback loops. Make American fairer? What do their Donors get back? Is it a surprise that the mainstream Democrats refuse to make any structural changes? It's a loser's game to help others.
This argument can be expressed more succinctly. Democratic and Republican politicians alike show fealty to their campaign contributors. But while Democrats also believe in public service, Republicans do not.
1
The problem with the legions of young progressives who could be driving American politics is that they abhor politics. Instead of getting their members elected to Congress, they focus on "consciousness raising." Occupy Wall Street raised a lot of consciousness but politically, it accomplished nothing. Black Lives Matter has raised a lot of awareness about police brutality and racism, but how many municipal police departments has the movement actually reformed? Young progressives need to stop marching, shouting, making witty signs and hunting for "likes" on social media. They should focus on winning seats in the US House of Representatives, just the way the Tea Party did ten years ago. Then they'll understand what it means to have an impact.
3
The Dem Party is adept at knee-capping the lefties who might want to run as Dems. In the primaries they actively undermine the most liberal candidates. The current leadership is terrified that younger lefties will be too liberal and scare the banks, arms dealers and Wall Street traders, by forcing them to obey the laws, and perhaps enact new laws curbing their activities. The leadership's favorite candidates are rich former GOP's that they can count on to maintain the status quo. These positions are bad enough, but the new welcoming of anti-choice candidates will be the death of the Party. They support candidates who want to deny bodily autonomy for half of U.S. citizens. As corrupt and greedy as the GOP seems to be, it is not with pride that I usually vote for the Democratic candidate.
1
"Since the election of Donald Trump, political analysts have expected a left-wing version of the Tea Party movement to arise. But Republicans still suffer from more ideological dissension even after gaining control of Washington."
That's quite a non sequitur.
The Democrats will get their act together when they get their act together. Whether they're able to even during a national emergency remains to be seen. ("I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." - Will Rogers) First they must purge the putrid corporate "centrism" the inbred party apparatchiks expediently adopted to prosper financially themselves, leaving democracy far behind.
And a party that has even a scintilla of fantasy space to give to Joe "Lady Whisperer" Biden is a party not yet ready for primetime. As for the others trumpeted for consideration in the List of 15, etc., most are equally has-beens or legends in their own mind, hectoring and loud-soundbiting and not impressing of unbeholden substance. Sherrod Brown has substance, and the needed sanity, stability and clear-mindedness, but my thinking is that actual unifying presence is paramount this go-round, and though her record is a little more conservative than I'd prefer, Amy Klobuchar fits the bill. Her party in Minnesota is officially the Democratic-Farm-Labor Party. The national party would be wise to take heed of that appellation: those are some of the folks disregarded in 2016, leading to a deserved thumping.
1
This is yet another piece in the Times that repeats exactly what Democratic party bosses and managers want their rank-and-file voters to do: vote for "moderate" (i.e. status quo-preserving) candidates who won't do anything to upset big-money donors.
But we know their arguments are pitifully unconvincing because they fail to mention the most striking thing about the 2016 election: the nearly successful popular rebellion against the party establishment led by Bernie Sanders.
We also know that low turnout among traditionally Democratic voters was a key factor in Clinton's loss. We also know that fewer and fewer left-leaning voters are identifying themselves as Democrats because they rightly see the party leadership as corrupt and ineffectual.
There is a major rift in the Democratic Party: and it is between those who demand a new New Deal for America (a dramatic restoration of FDR-style social democracy, which gave us the greatest prosperity in world history) and those who are content or stupid enough to go along with meager corporate-sponsored pabulum: the status quo.
10
This article is an example of why I buy the NYT. I am in a Red State and by virtue of a life hard won I am comfortable here. None-the-less, I read the NYT just to get explanatory information. My fellow Americans are not my Enemy. I served in 2 wars for the USA. I fear that like so many of my fellow citizens, I often fail to understand their heartfelt beliefs.
The NYT helps me to see however faintly into the fog of emotion.
If you hadn't noticed, most left-leaning voters DON'T want Nancy Pelosi as the Democratic House leader. She's not without certain talents. However, she's symbolic of the generational shift Democrats failed to make in 2016. Hillary Clinton is an even bigger symbol but Pelosi is right behind her. Pelosi is also a punching bag for Republican opposition.
Conor Lamb is a case in point. He had to publicly disavow Pelosi as House leader in order to get elected. I think everyone is willing to link arms just to win back the House in November. From that point on though, Democrats are just forestalling the day of reckoning within their party. If you hadn't notice, Democratic unity only tends to survive while the party is in the minority.
Democrats will need to clean shop and embrace the emerging values of left-leaning voters eventually. The sooner the better in my opinion.
9
Conor Lamb is coming on from the right, not the left. That's how he could be elected in such relatively conservative district.
The question now is whether the national Democrats are going to accept this, or give moderates a hard time. If they prefer to be hard-core leftists, then they'll have to be content with about 30-40% of the voters.
1
VOTE. If you have not been paying attention, voting is scheduled for November 6, 2018. It is a Tuesday. Put your vacation request in today if that is necessary.
78
1. Voter ID.
2. Abolish Early Voting.
3. Tax Political Contributions 50%
Problem Solved.
The Tea Party was funded by Big Oil and the Koch Brothers. If you are funding a movement, it is easy to organize it and point it in the direction you want it to go in. Of course the Tea Party movement elected politicians who did the bidding of Big Oil and the Koch Brothers, not the voters who elected them, which fueled the rage that led to Donald Trump. And of course he is also doing the bidding of Big Oil, Big Defense, the Koch Brothers etc. I could care less if there were a "Liberal Tea Party." What I would like to see for once is for Americans to wake up and realize that they need to elect politicians who will act in the best interest of the people who elected them, not in the best interest of Big Oil, Big Defense, the Koch Brothers etc....
8
I think there's a simpler way to state it: Democrats are about democracy; Republicans are about oligarchy.
And so it has been, since the election of Ronald Reagan...
7
Occupy Wall Street was in many respects a liberal version of the Tea Party, and I always wondered why there was not more synergy between the two, since on the face of it, there were many commonalities between the two. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have tried to bring a more progressive/populist set of issues, that (if permitted by the Party) I believe would tend to attract many independents or moderates who voted for Trump. But it seems that any attempts along those lines are smothered by a party leadership that is only concerned with three issues: identity politics, gender politics, and gender identity politics. Allegiance to darling social issues will prove just as damaging to the Democratic party as Richard Norquist "no new taxes" pledge has been to the Republicans. These two together are responsible in large part for the polarization in Washington.
14
Yes, "Occupy Wall Street," then vote for a woman taking millions in bribes from it. Give me a break...
2
For years, the Democrats have coasted on their habit of opposing whatever social issue position the Republicans are getting riled up about, but that is not enough.
There are still bigots--lots of nasty, rage-filled bigots, as anyone who reads unmoderated online comments knows--but the law is on the side of equality, and I have seen many changes in attitudes in my own lifetime. If you had told me even twenty years ago that we would have a president of color or that I would be receiving invitations to gay weddings, I would have thought you were fantasizing.
The issues that are really wearing people down are the economic ones, and that is true across all races and ethnic groups, all non-filthy-rich social classes.
If the Democrats can come up with a credible program to alleviate Americans' economic suffering and fears. they will win.
3
I am not sure what you mean that there were “many similarities” between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party. I was at Zuccotti Park during the protests, and I can attest to the fact that OWS was in direct opposition to the authoritarianship, oligarchy, and anti-democratic goals of the Koch led Tea Party. OWS was about ending the perverting power of money in politics and the profits-over-people mentality of the modern corporate and financial set.
57
In the long run, Republicans will probably have a harder time keeping their groups inside the party. Especially if they actually achieve their long cherished holy grail of slashing Social Security and Medicare, and running up the national debt to the point they can't be fixed, with nothing more to show for it than lower taxes for the 1%. But it's probably going to take a while.
The problem the Democrats have is that they are too easily distracted. The GOP does or proposes something outrageous, but that is often more symbolic than substantive. Suddenly the Dems lose focus and stop hammering the GOP on their economic policy, which is the one area that is highly unpopular with everyone who understands it who is not also a millionaire or billionaire.
2
There is a tea party on the left. They are known as progressives. Unfortunately they do not get equal press time, and are condescended to in op-ed articles in certain papers who push a neo-liberal agenda.
10
On the surface there is nothing wrong with limiting the scope of government and pushing conservative doctrine if you're a republican conservative.
Unfortunately, our America Republican conservatism no longer holds up in the light of day.
They are not the party of fiscal responsibility, they have become the exact polar opposite.
The republican mantras of family values, states rights and freedom are more like dog whistles for its members rather than coherent social policies.
Make believe issues like voter fraud, the war on Christmas and transgender children are the staple of conservative social policies; and, of course enriching corporations and shredding the American safety net.
It's been said many ways, the republican party is the party of no.
This isn't a political party offering real choices to all American's but a cabal of tenured politicians acting like robber barons fearing lost of power and status who will do anything to hold on to power.
6
the tea party was largely driven by racism...most of these people suddenly were engaged in politics once obama was elected. now that obama is gone they are nowhere to be found...nowhere screaming "i want my country back!"
also, i am tired of this same article being written every few weeks. dig deeper; see what is happening; and be inspired to have a fresh take.
3
The repubs keep up the drumbeat of tax cuts and decreasing "burdensome government regulations" all the while claiming to protect "American values" from all the terrible socialists on the left. Of coarse, it's all self serving and almost never actually helps (often hurts) regular Americans but at least it sounds good. The democrats otoh, seem to have reduced their message to one of open borders and protecting illegals and making them legal. This plays into the republican message that the left not only isn't interested in regular citizens but is in fact actively working against them. Until the Dems and the left realize that the average person is not a "xenophobic racist" but is understandably concerned about their families future first, the republicans will continue to win the debate even when they are being obviously dishonest about it.
3
Sorry to be blunt, but the idea that the Democratic Party supports "open borders" is simply a lie.
1
There is no Democratic tea party because the Democrats have no ideology. The Democratic Party evolved from New York City's Tammany Hall whose main ideology was to win elections by throwing freebies at whoever is willing to vote for them. That is why the Democratic party is willing to be all things to all people. You will find this party worried about the state of education while its unionized teachers retire at 50 with gold plated pensions. You will find them pontificating about lack of health care while its army of tort attorneys make any progress in health delivery impossible. Their regulations make industry impossible to exist while their captive unions just want the pay check mailed to them. This is the party that institutionalized slavery that now finds discrimination under every stone. They purport to represent minorities but their power structure is Lily white. Ideology comes from principles which are non-existent.
4
Since you seem to have such a clear understanding of the topic, perhaps you could explain the "principles" that Republican ideology is based on, and how those same principles led to the nomination and election of the most unprincipled " leader" this country has ever seen.
1
"The Republican Party is the agent of an ideological movement; most Republican politicians, activists and voters view their party as existing to advance the conservative cause."
This movement labels itself "conservative," but that's a misuse of the term that scholars shouldn't perpetuate. The Republican party is the agent of a radical rightwing reactionary movement. The word "conservative" goes along with the word "reform" which has become a euphemism for "destroy" in the hands public disourse.
1
Can we give put the idea that Republicans are ideologically driven to rest. This is the party that raises deficits, this is the "family values" party that has a President who has sex with porn stars and tries to pay them like prostitutes. Who lies, cheats, and doesn't pay his bills. The Republican party tries to claim nationalism while being bought by Russia. The Tea Party is a fraud whose only common feature is a tribal bigotry of white straight men.
The Democrats do have a diverse collection of ideas to handle a variety of issues. The only problem I see with the Democratic party is that these are frequently sold out to the 1%. The "economy stupid" Clintonite claim (definitely an ideology has been willing to sell out any other position Democrats have whether it be fighting climate change or pushing for women's reproductive rights if it furthers the profits of Goldman Sachs.
Right now it has been bigots versus a party for the !%. The democratic party needs to be a big tent party, by making the tent more concerned with the other 99%.
3
The very idea of a Tea Klan is anathema to liberals. With a black man running for, and then elected to, white America's White House, a "Tea Party" was inevitable! It showed the growing power of the country's staunch reactionaries.
This essay is still examining the detail in the billows of smoke blown out to hide our stone racism. Yesterday, today, tomorrow; too many of us fervently believe, "Black-people ain't folk." (I can't use the far more appropriate word that fits that thought)
Read Vann Newkirk's essay in the Atlantic, "White supremacy is the Achilles heel of American democracy."
2
One reason why there is not a "TEA Party of the Left" is because we on the left tend to be intelligent, logical, pragmatic and well-educated people, in stark contrast to the slavering, gullible ignoramuses who make up the TEA Party and swallow right-wing propaganda whole.
We actually THINK.
9
The Democrat Party is a permanent fixture in American Politics....ever since Jefferson's agri-biz contigent brokered a deal with Aaron Burr's urban finance upstarts....to become Pres and VP.........Through two centuries of politics the Democrats remain the one constant, defending the Status Quo...incorporating new ideas only when it become obviously necessary.........the Republicans, on the other hand, are only the latest incarnation of the loosely organized "opposition", temporary, ever changing. Since FDR and the New Deal.....we have seen a highly successful Political Duopoly develop.....to its logical conclusion....two corporations running the government, not for the citizens,,,but for the benefit of the "stockholders"(ie....elected politicians and their loyal bureaucratic retinue)....to wit....the DNC,Inc and the RNC,Inc......about as different as Coke and Pepsi.....Ford and Chevy......ATT and Verizon.
2
The Tea Party was a cynical construction. You're not going to get that on the earnest left.
The very last thing we need is a liberal Tea Party. We have enough anti-free speech, anti-white, anti-Semitic, anti-male regressive Leftists to lose any national election right now. Let’s hope they keep their illiberal mouths shut during any national elections. They may play well in parts of San Francisco and Brooklyn but they’re distinctly out of tune in middle America where we need to present an attractive alternative to Trumpism.
4
You forgetting the Clinton's?
The authors must have been sleeping for the past 17 months. There IS a Democratic Tea Party. But, without the ignorance and pitch forks.
It's called Indivisible and was modeled on the effective aspects of the Tea Party movement and without the meanness. Google it! However, you can include all the various groups by whatever names that formed to resist the Trump agenda.
Interestingly, the majority of these folks are women. That could be another reason the 2 male authors missed it.
We tried the town hall thing to raise our voices. Republicans simply stopped holding them. Now they are by invitation only, on the phone.
But, we are working smarter than our republican counterpoints a decade ago. We protest to be sure. More importantly, we are not-so-quietly organizing to take back the House, the Senate, governorships and state houses all across the country. There is at least 1 Indivisible group in every congressional district in the country, not to mention all the other similar groups.
Who do you think is out there running in districts that haven't seen a Democratic challenger for decades. And winning I might add. We see how Trump endangers the rule of law, free speech, our very democracy!
Most of the posts here talk about what's wrong with the party or are still wringing their hands over Bernie's loss and the unfairness of it all. How about we focus on what's really happening instead of making up bogus assertions to stir the pot???
109
Indivisible and the Justice Democrats are both doing well in presenting alternatives to establishment candidates and in proposing a solid policy agenda.
9
Indivisible? Never heard of it. I read the NYT, my local paper, and watch ABC news regularly. Supplement those with NPR and CNN on line. Seems pretty invisible to me.
1
Well, no surprise that you've never heard of it. You seem to get all of your news from corporate-safe sources. I'm not faulting you, just trying to explain why you've never heard of it.
They have a website that you can look at ti see if you're interested: https://www.indivisible.org.
What about the #resistance? All the Indivisible groups? The group I belong to in NYC, http://riseandresist.org? You can read about some of my adventures in activism at http://wrolf.net/blog, including how we beat the NRA.
2
It's the MSM. Are you kidding me? The Tea Party was in response to the liberal/progressive/socialist agenda that is counter to our founding principles.
There was no Social Security, no universal healthcare etc at our founding.
1
What do you think the words "promote the general welfare" mean?
3
Largely distinctions without a difference. Just as a herpetologist might be able to distinguish different species of lizards that to the rest of us look the same, liberal theoreticians may well be able to parse different sorts of Democrats. But as readers of the Times and the comments section can easily recognize, Democrats are united in their disdain for anything Republican, "non-coastal," or "conservative."
1
What an absolutely hilarious proposition. The use of bunny-ears as emblem of this argument is appropriate, as these assertions put one in mind of cwazy wabbits.
In the current Congress, there are many serving whose ideological convictions and activism are QUITE emblematic of an existing extremely liberal Tea Party. In the House, Rep. Raúl Grijalva [D-AZ], Rep. Eleanor Norton [D-DC], Rep. Barbara Lee [D-CA], Rep. Keith Ellison [D-MN], Rep. Judy Chu [D-CA], Rep. James “Jim” McGovern [D-MA], Rep. Mark Takano [D-CA], Rep. Yvette Clarke [D-NY], until recently Rep. John Conyers [D-MI], Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee [D-TX], and many, many more. They’re led by the diva of hyper-liberal activism, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi [D-CA]. In the Senate, we have Sen. Bernie Sanders [I-VT] (caucuses with Democrats), Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA], Sen. Edward “Ed” Markie [D-MA], Sen. Chris Van Hollen Jr. [D-MD], Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski [D-MD], Sen. Sherrod Brown [D-OH], Sen. Mazie K. Hirono [D-HI], Sen. Patty Murray [D-WA], Sen. Jeff Merkley [D-OR], newly hyper-lib Sen. Kirsten E. Gillibrand [D-NY], until recently Sen. Barbara Boxer [D-CA], and many, many more.
In addition to these and so many more in Congress, there appears to be a well-reported groundswell of young liberal activists seeking office for the first time, many of them women, volubly seeking to do for liberal convictions what the real Tea Party did for conservative convictions.
1
What characterized the Tea Party as it burst on the nation’s consciousness in 2009-2010, even though they’d been around before that, were two basic objectives: 1) kill in its tracks all liberal legislation, such as the ACA that so divided America (and destroyed the political effectiveness of Democrats until this very day), and 2) impose an extreme conservative view on our governance. Because many of them were evangelical Christians, they also sought to impose extreme religious views on our governance.
The LIBERAL Tea Party today, while not organized as such (but IS largely organized as the Congressional Progressive Caucus), is very much dedicated to its own resolutions, and seeks to do the opposite, with at least as much intense activism.
The authors’ main arguments are deeply flawed by having their major premise so easily proved invalid: there IS a liberal Tea Party in Congress today, and it is attracting adherents. The real Tea Party is losing influence in Congress as Republican moderates gain influence. In order to effectively combat the rise of hyper-liberal (and largely younger and more attractive) Democratic candidates, Republican candidates will need to moderate some of their views. That patently is not happening on the left, which will make them in my judgment vulnerable to center-right arguments. The party is moving to the left. However, America remains center-right.
As to Cynthia Nixon, strategy is irrelevant: she doesn’t have a prayer of beating Andrew Cuomo.
1
"As Republican moderates gain influence"
Sorry, Richard, but there's absolutely no evidence to support this statement.
1
Brad:
I know that would be convenient to assume, but here's a partial list of moderate Republicans gaining influence in Congress:
The Senate: Sen. Lindsey Graham [R-SC], Sen. John McCain [R-AZ], Sen. Susan Collins [R-Mn], Sen. Ben Sasse [R-NE], Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Sen. Lisa Murkowski [R-AK], and many more.
The House: Rep. Justin A. Amash [R-MI], Rep. Mike Coffman [R-CO], Rep. Barbara Comstock [R-VA], Rep. Carlos Curbelo [R-FL], Rep. Rodney Davis [R-IL], Rep. Charlie Dent [R-PA], Bob Dold [R-IL], and many more.
It's not all "freedom Caucus", and those worthies are diminishing in number and influence.
Not so Democratic moderates.
This is the most ridiculous thought arrangement I think I've ever seen. Both parties are evil, vain and really mean to the point of driving this country to oblivion. A pox on both
2
Feed a man to fish and you'll feed him for a day
Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime
The problem with the Democrats is they only want to give a man a fish
Republicans want to give a fish to people who already have a lot of fish.
-Roy Zimmerman, "The Problem With Democrats"
3
"Yet there has been no evidence of a national, ideologically motivated rebellion among Democratic primary voters, interest groups or donors"
It's like they never counted the mass of voters that either didn't vote or voted for Green Party candidates because they couldn't stomach the Democratic candidate that was forced down their throats.
Also has the author never heard of a Progressive?
This article is truly disrespectful to it's readers.
3
"But most Democrats give precedence to more tangible rewards."
Really? The author seems to give more weight to rewards other than winning elections, which seems to be the primary reason that political parties exist. Democrats have lost the House, Senate, state governorships, almost a thousand state seats leading the loss of state chambers, the White House, and as a result of everything else to some degree the Supreme Court. What is tangible about that? This is in spite of the claim that 'we’re more rational and data driven', and their media supporters missed one of the biggest political stories in decades due to flagrant bias.
I guess the 'more tangible rewards' is the pride in 'we won the popular vote'. Democrats still seem traumatized the loss of the White House due to almost a million Democrats not voting like they did in 2012 in the states that Trump flipped. As a result they seem to spend of their time portraying Trump and the GOP as Nazis and minions of the Devil instead of assessing reasons for their losses and developing changes in their platform to address it. Hopefully they will at least vote in the mid-terms and demonstrate some credible successes, as the country needs two functioning political parties.
Sanders, the Sanders Institute, MoveOn. The Dems are dead men walking.
1
Yes. They're walking -- all over the Republican political agenda.
1
There is no need for a liberal tea party; the entire socialistic democratic party is moving to the extreme left.
Here's a tip for next time: There are 2 M's in the word "Communist." That's the word you want, so by thunder use it. Your Trump would. LIKE THIS!!!
There's no "the tea party" either. Out this way it's all nativists who feel more beset by "illegals" than by taxes.
"Where's the Tea Party of the Left?"
Nowhere, hopefully. The Tea Party is (was) a joke, a bunch of clueless yahoos whose entire existence was centered around the misguided politics of victimhood and racial grievance. That there is no similar movement on the left is to our credit.
4
The Republican Party is primarily the party of big money: Wall Street and giant corporations. But of course, there aren't enough billionaires to vote themselves into control of the state and federal governments. In order to win elections, they have to pretend to be interested in issues that dominate a large fraction of the 99%, including a disparate collection of evangelical Christians, the gun lobby, social reactionaries, racists and anti-immigrant groups. Members of these groups are often single-issue voters, and have no interest or understanding of the billionaire class. The latter is simply using them to gain control of the government, and their priority is to reward the billionaire class.
As a result, the moneyed interests who control the party apparatus has nothing in common with the voters they use to gain control of the government. And their highly opinionated, and close minded voter base is not getting what they thought they voted for. The Tea Party is a response to this disconnect.
The Democratic Party is often compared a collection of cats, difficult to herd, but at least they have common interests. The Republican Party is more a collection of predators, enlisting their prey to gain control. Predators have no interests in common with their prey.
3
There is no Liberal Tea Party because the GOP Tea Party was a bunch of hard line nut jobs. When faced with a group whose ultimate role model was Sarah Palin, who would want to emulate that? From their inception, the Tea Party was destructive. Party over democracy.
The Democrats have many faults and there is infighting but it has been a party of inclusion for the most part. For the good of ALL.
Given the Dems current state of powerlessness when breathing bodies are needed in Congress, a large tent of less than pure 'ideologies' is needed. Dems have fought each other with knives while fighting the GOP with plastic spoons. Time for a switch.
2
The difference between Democrats and Republicans is like the difference between band members and football players.
1
When Democrats go TeaParty they vote Green, stay home and complain like the BernieBros, or just write to The New York Times about it. Republicans vote for Republicans and sort it out later. This fact won't change gerrymandering or voter repression but it how we got both. Democrats circular firing squad if forming right now, just in time for November 2018. It's where Democrats need to win that they will manage to fight it out in ways that alienate voters and confuse them with complicated, nuanced messages. 63 million Americans just aren't that smart and the fact that Democrats don't understand that is another reason why we have Trump.
The tea party has brought two ineffectual leaders. Who needs another hate party?
Couldn't find enough people willing to carry signs with egregious misspellings?
Democrats are all working or looking for work instead of sitting in the recliner listening to wackos on television rant about bizarre conspiracy theories.
4
Personally, I never give money to the DNC. Or my state democratic Party to do as they wish. I give money directly to progressive candidates who represent my interests....because all to often party money goes to conservative 3rd Way Dems who exist, apparently to prove the old jest “ Democrats-R- Republicans. You know, like neo- liberal war hawks named Hillary.
As far as the two parties in Washington go, our “choices“ are... would you like to be sold down the river extremely rapidly? (R) ... or would you like to be sold down the river slightly less rapidly? (D).
I'm voting straight D in November. Not because I expect the Democrats to stop shoveling ever-greater piles of the nation‘s wealth upward to the already fabulously rich, but simply because they don‘t seem to wake up every morning eager to find someone to be mean to.
The proof is in the pudding folks... Wall Street/The 1% typically get about 60% of what they want out of any given Congress, and when The People OVERWHELMINGLY want something... (what are the numbers on sensible gun legislation – 70-80%+)... **crickets**
Nominally, we live in a Democratic Republic... de facto, we live in a plutocracy. Would you like the puppet of their choice on their right hand, or the puppet on their left hand?
: ) L
2
haven't you heard of the resistance?
1
In his book The Righteous Mind Professor Haida argues that democrats are driven by a more narrow range of moral imperatives than republicans, with democrats mostly focused on equal opportunity and treatment of all. This might argue that democrats are both more united on broad priorities yet more divided by a number of causes that unite narrow parts of the country—black lives matter, white women elites fights for equality, LGBTQ groups, principled but broadly unpopular support for illegal immigrants and Muslims A collection of protest movements, each of which badly offend and motivate a faction of the broader Republican Party.
It’s hard to see democrats making major progress in republican areas with its current posture. The Tea Party expanded the republican base by grabbing those who were worried about debt and failed intrusive programs. With broad disgust with government, with deficits exploding, and with republicans now united on protecting jobs and voiding multilateral trade agreements that hurt union jobs, it’s hard to imagine a democratic initiative that will move voters to them
Instead they must hope that dislike of Trump’s character or a new war or a financial disaster will trigger a 2008 like backlash to get democrats back in power. With the economy booming, the president’s reluctance to get sucked further into the Mideast fiasco, and a potential breakthrough in Korea, it looks like democrats will once again be out of luck
Democrats are slower to anger than conservatives. They (Dems) don't get into a lather over every perceived slight. I don't know why that is, but I have a strong suspicion that most conservatives are insecure, and feel a need to bang the table and make verbal threats to mask their shortcomings. (Such as manners and education.)
cant this article be described as one group is bitter and angry over the loss of an imagined (or at least limited) past while one group wonkishly tries to improve the future?
2
What an insipid, limp, deconstruction.
It is a laughable to propose that tea party, or the republicans, are driven by anything other than an insane belief that they should be in charge of everything and everyone. Wall street reps want to plunder, steal, destroy without recourse. Main street and rural want to control everything with the flag and the bible. Conservatism has lacked a real world analog.
Similarly, the notion that democrats are a coalition is laughably under-stated. Democrats are consumed in self-pity, vocabularies and practices of the powerless (candle light vigils), class-envy, and a dangerous sense of entitlement. And omigosh the tantrums. We would rather not vote for Hillary, because we couldn't find the candidate who turns water into wine, and radiates stardust. A coalition given to whimpering, and purity tests, and songs around "what have you done for me lately," lacks the mettle, spine, fiber to form a chin-out, smirking version of a tea party. Since democrats lost white christians, rurals, and blue collar, their tea parties are quite literal (i.e., where they serve tea).
No reader of Vanity Fair, or a humanities professor clamors for anything other than an invitation by the super rich to a literal tea party. And, they will stay behind, clean up the vomit, and trade stories about how they were kicked while feeling smug and entitled.
Bah humbug losers.
Kalidan
The reasons why there is no "Liberal Tea Party" are obvious. Liberals as a group have not abandoned reality and reason. They do not make claims that contradict observed facts. And they are not racists. No denial of global warming, no Laffer curves, and no voter fraud conspiracy theories are required to be a liberal. And, of course, white nationalism disguised as economic distress is a complete non-starter for liberals. But all that is the very heart of the Tea Party. The Tea Party is a collection of white fantasist and raciest who'll support any politician telling them a story that fits into their fascist worldview. This all sounds very harsh, but it is all demonstrably true. Denying that truth for the sake of some ideal of "communication" is pointless. And it keeps people dwelling in the real world from realizing just how dangerous the Tea Party types are.
2
Pay no attention to the fact that the DNC debates, the DNC nomination process including its over-cozy superdelegate system, and the New York Times herself, were shills for a candidate that couldn't win the presidency over an ordinary common monster.
Yes, we're all great friends around here.
Pssst... Matt and Dave. I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you.... You see... The left can't have a Tea Party.
Tea Party people stand for personal responsibility, personal freedom, government accountability, honesty, and less government intervention.
They don't approve of the government weaponizing the IRS to intimidate political adversaries, like the left.
They don't engage in identity politics, splintering people into aggrieved special interest groups like the left.
They don't believe politicians should be peddling their influence to line their pockets with hundreds of millions of dollars, maintain classified government information on personal servers in direct violation of Federal law, and be hailed as some kind of champion for women, when they spent previous years actively engaged in destroying womens' reputations.
You see Matt and Dave, liberals believe in the "win at all cost" philosophy, which is wholly an amalgam of, lying, cheating, rigging, smearing, and lying some more.
THAT'S why there can be no "liberal" Tea Party.
Excellent. Thanks for articulating
https://www.justicedemocrats.com/platform - money out of politics so we support the people not the corporations - if you don't see that there is a large movement going on you're watching msm only
1
Wrong: you mistake the froth for the substance! The Republican Party, especially its right wing, does have a strong ideology which is to support the rich and corporate profits. The values issues you enumerate are only the smoke screen behind which massive government policies allow great extraordinary wealth and burgeoning income and wealth inequality. (In my opinion basically robbing our county's resources.) Your observation that "Liberal candidates and activists can succeed in pushing the Democratic Party to the left on specific issues. But they will do so by appealing to the interests and loyalties of social groups rather than engaging in broader ideological debates" is similarly superficial. The Democratic Party is about civic virtue and the power of government agency to create social justice. Years of public policy distortion and media support for the fable has drowned out the flag of passionate purpose analagous to that of the Tea Party. There is now a ground swell of Democratic candidates rushing to carry this banner.
hopefully there will be a revolution that punishes the theocrats and speculative pirates. there will not be; for all of our bluster about "freedom" and "independence" americans are far to respecting of "authority" and bluster. the nation is happy to elevate hucksters to places of honor and regard thoughtfulness and reason as weakness.
1
"Republicans...suffer from...dissension...their goals of reducing ...government... are difficult to achieve... failing to uphold principles...becoming targets of interest groups, media outlets and rival politicians who see their role as enforcing symbolic commitment to conservative orthodoxy."
"Conservative orthodoxy" is shriveled government, transferring power to corporations owned by the 1 to 10%--essentially feudalism, fascism's predecessor-- done by waving the FREEDOM flag.
But that is now in shreds--freedom from foreign government (the original Tea Party Movement) is not freedom from government; government is essential for civilization--civil service, civil engineering and civility. Freedom from government is anarchy--shifting power to corporate lords--ironically creatures of government--except for Mafia and war lords. "Freedom" must spell out Whose? From what? To do what? It's not some elixir and its feeling.
So "conservatives" i.e the anti-government movement must find a new mythology to keep them in government. Itself a fundamental paradox--driving .
disunity, as it searches for a mythology that sells. Maybe play the Evangelical card? Maybe play politics as reality TV? A new jingle?
Democrats try to base policy on science--natural and social--as well as research in humanities--i.e, on reality as academia dis-covers it.
"Conservatives" would shrivel academia to death, if they could--because it is fundamentally opposed to myth--god story, or economic.
3
The authors fail to mention two important aspects of the Tea Party:
1) It received extensive funding from the Koch brothers.
2) It received massive amounts of free and favorable coverage from Fox so-called News.
Absent those two critical inputs, the Tea Party would have died an early death.
7
I wholeheartedly disagree with this entire piece. Yes, there absolutely is an equivalent of a liberal "Tea Party". To suggest otherwise is the height of arrogance and, frankly, evidence to prove their is a liberal "Tea Party".
When I hear Tea Party, I think of an ignorant group of folks, who willfully ignore reason, knowledge, and logic to promote their extreme ideology.
The Democratic version of this is trying to pass social policies that restrict or ignore freedom of speech on such a massive scale its outrageous. It sets up far too much precedent for a person in power to destroy the entire concept of America for being able to criminalize what people say and do. Examples include all forms of hate speech legislation, not willing to discuss any topic without resorting immediately renouncing and labeling your ideological opponents (insert here)-phobic and the ramifications that come immediately afterword to the person labeled such.
Now, I still will be voting Democrat for life unless something truly drastic happens, but to say you are without extremists is just simply ignorant and dangerous. When you think you know everything and have no faults. That's the kind of thinking that puts men like Trump into power. Or Worse.
1
"Yet there has been no evidence of a national, ideologically motivated rebellion among Democratic primary voters, interest groups or donors."
Stopped reading right there. Fake news.
3
It's simply that Democrats have more civilized, mature values than Republicans. To support that, answer the question why NeoNazi's, White Nationalists, and Klan members find a home in the Republican Party? There's something about their values that make them all comfortable with that party. Those same values prevent extremism from the ranks. There's a lot of passion in the Democratic Party, I'd argue the same as the Tea Partiers, but their values are the difference.
3
The "Tea Party" was really a fringe libertarian movement within the Republican base, until the rich donors decided to push the R's much further to their libertarian ideas by financing (unknown) TP candidates bigtime to "primary" the more moderate R's. (Thanks, Citizens United!)
Stephen Colbert, speaking at a Times 100 gala, said it best: "...By the way, if David Koch likes his waiter tonight, he will be your next congressman."
7
Nancy Pelosi didn’t lose the majority, gerrymandering and racism against the first black president lost it. When she regains it in the blue wave she will continue to lead.
I don’t get this whole commentary. A recent analysis said that 20% of all people have been to a protest as part of the resistance. We don’t have a tea party, we have a tsunami.
3
Although both parties depend on donors, for democrats there is no rigid ideology (i.e. republican) to stop them from implementing the needs and wishes of their constituents, a pragmatic approach most of us appreciate, given that we, with the power of our vote, are the one's electing them to administer the day to day business of governing. Just look at the stupidity of the G.O.P., adamant in cutting taxes irrespective of whether it is wise or not, and more often than not at the expense of denying justice in social safety nets for the poor (and with no fault of their own, as the nature of a capitalistic system always favors capital over labor). Democrats have shown to be more generous in providing refuge for those in need, a compassionate approach foreign to their counterparts, the stingy 'Paul Ryans' of this world. As it stands right now, the republicans in power have no inkling how to govern well, used as they were to cheap blows against Obama proposals (even if originally republican ideas) when in the opposition (doggone obstructionists, and faux deficit hawks, as shown recently). In brief, the G.O.P., unable to have consensus how to serve the people, ought to move aside and give democrats the chance to show their meddle. Having a shameless and incompetent thug at the helm doesn't help either, witness Trump's ire/jealousy when Nikki Haley dares exercise her sound instincts to counter Putin's abusive posture. The republican party had it's chance...and it blew it!
Tea party sprang from the cynical lie that was the Reagan legacy - that government is the problem not the solution.
What a hopeless, disenfranchising, disrepresentative view.
3
There is no liberal tea party because there would be no deep pocket funder behind such a project to get corporate media to notice. The 2008 tea party had both.
The Democratic wing of the Democratic party is in the ol' if this was a thing I'd see it in the papers but it's not in the papers so it must not be a thing - sort of a reverse Dick Cheney/Judith Miller dynamic.
2
We need less ideology in politics, not more. Suggesting that, "Democrats attack Mr. Trump for his mistreatment of vulnerable social groups" is a mis-representation and a bias assumption that these 'vulnerable social groups' are small discrete groups of people. Rather, the vulnerable social group is 99% of the US population.
2
This article is utter bunkum. Pretending that there was no Bernie Sanders nor a Progressive insurgency won’t make the truth go away
2
The 'tea party' of the Left, as Mr. Grossmann and Mr. Hopkins dumb it down for the audience, exists. It's called the coalition of democratic and undemocratic socialists, Marxists, Greens, and anarchists (and everyone else within that spectrum) - the groups the Democrats have spent years demonizing and keeping out from the party's leadership. From Jessie Jackson and his Rainbow Coalition in the 80s to Socialist-lite Senator Sanders, who is constantly kept out of the Democratic establishment and portrayed as someone 'who isn't an actual Democrat', the Dems prove time and time again they do not want left-of-center governance. A real shame.
1
In an effort to appear academic, the article glosses over some critical factors.
The orthodoxy of conservatism allows for and as the tea party has shown is susceptible to anti-intellectual reductionism. Either you are with us or you are a liberal. The tea party utilized this mentality to move the party to the right with a blend of fear, racism, hyperbole.
The tea party would not exist if Clinton won in 08, because it was rooted in a latent fear among certain parts of our voting public that a Black, liberal leader needed to be strongly opposed. Let's not assume for a second that a white leader would have sparked such an opposition.
The other reason there will never be a left tea party is because MSNBC is the closest thing the left has to the right's FOXNews. The real danger with that network is an audience that wants simple answers to difficult problems and is spoon fed those answers. The tea party is rooted in simplicity, - we are good, moderates are bad, liberals will destroy the country.
Most Dems I know simply don't view the world or the American political theater in such severe categories. And I think the big tent center would never allow a Bernie sanders driven orthodoxy to take over the party, to the chagrin of many, but that's because we simply aren't designed as a party to be ultra-anything. Flexibility is an asset in liberal philosophy, and hopefully the DNC leaders don't lose sight of this.
1
Republicans do whatever it takes. Dems talk a good game but have their hands in the corporate till as well. If the Dems want to succeed they can start by addressing income inequality. Not so hard let's head back to Eisenhower level tax rates and LBJ social programs. If not then let's continue down the road to being a third world country run by and for Oligarchs
2
Make no mistake, the left has a purity test. Predicting a Blue Tsunami based on the PA18 and Alabama Special election is a fools game.
.
Conor Lamb did not have a primary. Had he been in California, Washington or New York, he would not have survived a primary and probably wouldn't have entered the race at all. Jones, in Alabama, had a very flawed opponent and just barely won.
.
Pro-gun, pro-life candidates will only work in the red states. Identity politics, that exclude the largest demographic, will only work, in already Blue states.
.
If you hated DJT before, you have likely not changed your mind. If you held your nose and voted for him, you could go either way. I doubt most voters, in this group, would acknowledge the political stage would have better with Hillary. If you like DJT, you're probably ticked off at the "deep state" and the unwillingness of congressional Republicans to be more supportive. I, for one, think it is time to stop fooling around and call the "bluff".
.
Fire Mueller and Rosenstein. Pardon anyone Mueller has charged. Go to Capitol Hill, pickup Nunes. Drive to the FBI HQ and get all of the documents congress has requested. Fire anyone that disagrees. Stop by Strock and Page's office and tell them their insurance policy has been cancelled.
.
Drive Nunes back to work. Hey, look, DJT can still make that 9AM tee time.
.
And, that's why, I'm not the president.
1
There's another reason there's no tea party of the left. Where are the billionaires willing to fund radical leftist stooges to enact their agenda? Where are their puppet candidates?
(Don't even try to bring up George Soros.)
It's worth remembering there would be no tea party without all the money that has been poured into astro turf organizations, think tank propaganda mills, talk radio, FOX, etc. to gin up the tea party base and fund their candidates. There's a huge asymmetry right there.
Republicans are fighting over who gets to rule and how to divvy up the loot. Democrats are fighting over the best way to govern and make things work.
1
Anyone who believes this has clearly not been on sites like Daily Kos. I am one Bernie supporter who voted for Hillary Clinton, and I am far from a "bro," but the left wing of the supposedly leftist party has been regularly squelched into silence and the party has drifted so far to the right that it resembles Eisenhower Republicans. They are losing young people because few will be vocal on gun control or student debt until they are forced to. The new breath of young leftists in the party are a welcome addition, and it is dumb to try to cling to right Center policies they don't hold.
64
DailyKos is not the place to go to look for anything resembling a left tea party. If you don't think so, offer up a stinging criticism of any Democratic candidate or elected official who campaigns or votes like a Republican. See how accepted your criticism is, there's plenty of examples to choose from.
2
I look at the Daily Kos headlines but find them to be to far left for this Democrat. I was for Clinton, not because I loved her, but because I believe centrist politics are the only logical way to go. I was against both Trump and Sanders because they were promising the sky (not that Trump is governing that way). I like my politicians to be down to earth, logical, and pragmatic. I don't like litmus tests and like the "big tent" version of the Democratic Party.
6
Have you not noticed the followers of Bernie Sanders and Liz Warren? You know, the ones who upended the 2016 Democratic National Convention and refused to vote for Hillary in November? They recently endorsed a challenger over reliably liberal Diane Feinstien.
They are out there.
38
I am a Bernista/Liz person, and I know many others of my general ilk, and it is a myth that we opposed Hillary in the general election. I do not know a single person in that movement who did -- I am sure there are some but far fewer than legend has it -- only a VERY low percentage of us "New Revolutionaries."
And Bernie was Hillary's most energetic, consistent and forceful supporter during the general election campaign (and Hillary was SUPPORTED by Liz in the primaries).
So let's lay that nonsense to rest. Hillary lost because of Comey, and Putin, and Fox News's lies, NOT because of Bernie or his supporters.
11
Lie. The overwealmingly majority of Sanders supporters voted for Hillary; he TOLD them to and most of them did. It was deluded white women who voted for Trump, apathetic minorites and false equivalency dupes, and naive millennials, along with the Russian hacking of the election that put the Trump the Traitor in office. And had the DNC and the media not tilted the primaries, Bernie would be president.
13
Furthermore, some of Bernie's supporters were people who had been so disillusioned by both parties that they hadn't voted for years or even ever in their lives. When Bernie was knocked out of the primaries, they saw Hillary as representing the same-old same-old and stayed home.
Remember that nationwide, FIFTY PERCENT of eligible people do not vote at all.
Whoever can capture them--with policies that speak to their real needs, as opposed to the tired old tactic of taking opposite positions on hot button issues and leaving the rest up to the corporate contributors--will be the majority party for the foreseeable future.
8
"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." Will Rogers.
27
Who wants that? The Tea Party pretended to care about big government spending, but where are they now? It was never about that and always about "death panels" and other demonstratively untrue beliefs. Why should "the Left" be a giant hive collective pushing its ideals without second thoughts or fact-checking? Two opposing ideologies is not the solution to a problem it exacerbates the problem.
14
The Democratic party hardly needs a rump group parroting a GOP group of fanatics to win at the ballot box. What it sorely lacks are candidates that stimulate the imagination with their eloquent vision of a better country, ones who are better at independent thinking than reading tea leaves to test the prevailing political winds. Tea parties suggest groups of loud, uncompromising, angry white people, mostly men, which fits Trump America far better that the Democratic party. Insurgent groups took much of their inspiration from Newt Gingrich who early on called Republican successes as part of a revolution. He and his minions encouraged dissension and intolerance, comparing Democrats to traitors. Mainstream candidates, i.e. sane ones, need to wean themselves off Fox and Friends, and fight the good fight in ways that display genuine intellect, independence from party bosses who impose conditions precedent that choke local flexibility and be willing to take stands on bread and butter issues like single-payer health insurance, rebuilding the physical and spiritual infrastructure of America, criminal justice reform and an end to decades of war. Give it a try. You might see some victories in the strangest places like my home state of Georgia.
13
Nothing wrong with this analysis, ... except as an op-ed, I think we're entitled to ask, "And what do you think about this?"
Yes, the "ideological" (for a time) Kansas tea party flavored GOP darn near made living in that state pretty unattractive unless you were named Buffet or Koch.
But Cuomo has done something like that for the 1/2 of NY State that isn't earning $100K as a household.
While he's thrown billions toward unionized employees - more numerous percentagewise in our state than nationally, but a small minority even here - and now has every reason to expect their votes - he's allowed mass transit to run on empty.
And it shows, of course.
The authors also neglect - probably because it's never happened in their lifetime - to mention that there was a time when the dynamics of the current Democratic party were replicated on the national stage.
That is, SOMEHOW, people like JFK - I'm far from his biggest fan - put together NATIONAL AGENDAS that gave something to "working people," minority groups AND businesspeople.
There are many reasons why the country's economy was rosier then, but when you look at things like income inequality, you have to ascribe a great deal of it to BOTH parties' departure from pre-Reagan norms.
This isn't just pining for "the good old days." The TImes, if it put NY's interest ahead of its own corporate ones, would be thumping for Ms. Nixon ... instead of taking a patently anti-Nixon line.
Democracy is at peril when the press is craven.
6
Yes, there was infighting among Democrats - that's how the DNC crushed Bernie and stuck us with Hillary. I voted for Hillary with my head, not my heart, ie, I was voting against Trump. We also had Occupy Wall Street. Sadly, the liberals nowadays may legislate for our benefit in theory, but the society they have created is much too expensive for the average person. The irony is that everyone is being forced to move from blue states to red states. Not sure if that will make the reds more liberal. Nowadays I mostly vote third party. 0ther countries have strong third parties. The 2 party system is killing this country.
18
The tea party was born of selfishness and greed. Who can forget the ranting on CNBC about not helping folks who were scammed into bad mortgages while the scammers made off with billions. The Democrats, for all their faults, still believe in making society equitable. The debate is how to do that for everyone. In the past they did have to address challenges by socialists and communists. They were the tea party in their time. Today they are just a footnote of failed ideas, like the tea party will be soon.
8
Also, TEA folk are suddenly silent as crickets about being taxed for a big beautiful border wall. Promised that Mexico would pay; cheering crowds LOVED that stuff. And now? Are you suddenly not taxed enough? Are you happy to give your newfound tax cut back to the heavy hand of the government?
It's probably Democrats' fault that Republicans are hypocrites, amirite?
4
I disagree that "Democratic voters detest Mr. Trump just as much as Republicans disliked Barack Obama."
Yes, we disagree with him vehemently on policy, as we have with Republicans before him. But what really fuels our dislike is our belief in the rule of law, political norms, and basic decency that President Trump takes glee in attacking every day.
It's the same reason a small group of Republicans who disagreed vehemently with President Obama will put country over party in November and vote for Democrats. I don't expect that to continue once Trump leaves office.
I would give much to wake up every day simply angry with a president over a policy disagreement instead of fearful for the future of our democracy.
13
Republicans face a daunting dialectic. They advocate smaller government and a balanced budget as core beliefs. But many of their supporters in the white middle and working classes depend upon the social programs that would need to be cut to balance the budget after their tax cuts. These supporters expect budget cuts to impact someone other than themselves. So, the Republicans simply cut taxes and create deficits in the hope that the growing debt will ultimately force the cuts. The growing debt and prospect of massive social program cuts both spell disaster for the party. The failure to reconcile the ideological dialectic causes frustration and militancy within the party. We all suffer the consequences.
7
Seriously? I think there is a liberal version of the Tea Party: Bernie Sanders “Progressives”. While they don’t, at this point have the clout of the Tea Party, it’s not for lack of trying. Both groups are convinced that their’s is the only way, are unwilling to compromise and demonize those that aren’t on board with their extremist agendas. The Tea Party folks and those that follow Sanders are just different sides of the same coin.
5
Easy, friend. Here's one Bernie supporter who's not interested in demonizing anyone. Hillary's tired neoconservativism lost the election to the second-worst candidate. What did she offer to the working stiffs whose 12 million factory jobs disappeared in the last 3 decades? Retraining? Paid family leave? Please.
Democrats have been trying to shade policy toward the center for far too long. They effectively abandoned the middle class, stopped expanding the social welfare system in 1968. The result has been decades of close elections and political stasis. Also, social disintegration and permanent warmongering. This, truly, is the Clinton legacy.
Democrats need to adopt policies that support the middle class —and the poor — and address the wage suppression and limited opportunities so many Americans are living with. The need to rein in corporate power, beginning with refusing corporate campaign funds.
A majority of Americans now agree the government must guarantee healthcare to everyone. Universal healthcare would save Americans $1 trillion and 50,000 lives annually. When will Democratic leadership get behind a rational, good idea already enjoying popular support?
6
I would agree and also add that the problem isn't having something comparable to the Tea Party, it is communicating what that means and how it benefits regular Americans. I understood perfectly what the Bernie faction was espousing but that is more because I sought it out and was aligned with it. People wanting change were enamored of our current President's bluster, not necessarily his policies (did he even have any, when running?). In this reality TV country, that won the day. May god help us all.
1
What's an example of an issue on which Bernie's supporters are unwilling to compromise on? I see people making this argument often, but they never give an example.
1
It's rather simple: as the Republican Party has moved further to the right, the Democrats have moved toward the center. May Providence will that a Democratic coalition of left and center may take back the House this year, with a tactical truce between left and center and without a turnout-destructive ideological spat. Winning back disaffected cdntrist Democrats and independents who are deeply disturbed by Trumpism is crucial to building a national majority. Letting splintering far leftist causes rule the agenda will bring another electoral failure.
8
If you're out of power, it's much easier to seem united. It's when you're actually elected that the infighting starts. When the Dems had a majority in the early years of Obama's presidency, they purged the Blue Dogs. Now, they're willing to pretend that a guy like Lamb is acceptable.
1
The GOP is not a party susceptible to special interests--it is wholly owned by special interests. Oil, coal, tobacco, guns, autos, Wall St.--anything that shells out the big campaign bucks. Behind those interests lies the simple proposition that we consist of Mitt Romney's takers, who clamor for the hard-earned dollars of his makers. It is fatuous to meditate on the differences among lefties and righties when the righties are in harness to oligarchs who have a clearly expressed commitment to reducing the involvement of the takers in the electoral process. Look, Mitch McConnell has just announced a list of pressing matters that he will not allow to be brought to a vote in the Senate. Where does he get such power over fellow senators, other than that he is empowered by a spineless, gutless, mindless cadre of wealthy and ambitious things that pass for "leaders?" Philosophizing is grotesque in the face of such reality.
8
That and the fact most democrats appall empty, hollow, and fake political catch phrases that simply appeal to false Patriotism and require no real sacrifice.
3
I believe myself to be a progressive liberal of the center. But the designation "liberal" is used for a variety of political orientations, including that of the leftist radical Democrats and the other politically correct, militant vegans, etc., attached to the former's coattails and dragged wallowing in their wake.
2
Republicans, small tent, looking backwards. Democrats, large tent, looking forward. It is pretty simple. The problem with Democrats is their coalition is so large, they can have civil and useful discussions without demanding ideological purity like Republicans but they end up squabbling forever rather than keep their eye on the ball. Our nearby dems had 10 rounds of votes and endorsed none of the 8 candidates for one position before the primary season while the Repubs ruthlessly cut down their candidate list to one. Further, Dems have no ground game for local and state elections like Repubs. They are pitiful at the local level here in flyover land.
1
I for one am glad that the adults are still in charge of at least one of our parties. I’d like to think of myself as a non-partisan independent, but my voting record would tell a very different story. Because one party seems to have a habit of nominating people I have a hard time taking seriously - or worse, rallying behind truly despicable men like Roy Moore and Donald Trump.
5
Leftist Democrats are too interested in purity tests and identity politics to form an effective coalition. It's not about political beliefs. You can't be accepted in some of these circles unless you can claim to be a member of the right disadvantaged group.
I'm really tired of people hating on me because of my race and gender. But leftists do it constantly.
5
I am a 70 year old white male baby boomer. I never ever voted for a Republican.
Lately, the Democratic party has decided that I,and my two sons, are privileged oppressors. I always thought of myself as child of the 60s seeking to live peacefully and in harmony with all of my neighbors.
I really don't like people who feel that they are somehow privileged to mindlessly judge and denounce me and people like me because of the color of my skin. My mother always told me that two wrongs don't make as right.
I will most likely never vote for a Republican, but if Democrats want my vote they better make an effort to actively seek my vote.
The visceral feeling of hate is what is tapped by republicans--hate the change, those people, the decline, whatever change or difference. It is easy to fire people up with hate in their belly.
Love? It's the best. But it doesn't exactly drive action.
When it comes to action/voting, hate is hard to beat. Maybe it is why war is the perpetual state of man.
53
Completely agree. My letter to the NYT editors says as much.
I am sorry to tell you that there is an abundance of hate on the extreme left as well as the extreme right.
"The Republican Party is the agent of an ideological movement," whereas "[t]he Democratic Party, by contrast, is organized as a coalition of social groups." It's also important to keep in mind the overwhelming power of race and sex on the Republican side. If you look at the numbers (and this is oft said, but devastatingly true), the Republican party, its base and voters are nearly exclusively white and heavily predominantly male. On the other side is everyone else. The right's purported "ideological movement," with its watered-down anarchism without guts, authoritarianism, adolescent, gun-toting warmongering, environmental pillage, and self-righteous, Christian myth-zealotry, is really just all about maintaining white male hegemony. When the "movement" both strives for, and must attribute its very existence to, such cultural "purity," it's pretty obvious why the right is so monolithic.
10
Intersectionalism seems to mean it's not possible to tackle any issue from the left without tackling all of them.
3
If there is no liberal Tea Party, what do you call those who proudly call themselves Progressives? And what about "the 99%" and the Down with Wall Street crowd? And the Bernie Bros? And the Antifa?Only political omertà holds the D's together.
3
45 years ago the Democrats persuaded friends on the Supreme Court to remove the abortion issue from democratic control because they could not get their way through the electoral process. This caused a massive backlash that fired up Republican voters and is still in effect today.
There is no corresponding Republican action that has acted to fire up Democrats. You might think Citizens United (the bribery ruling) or the bias of the criminal justice system against blacks might do it, but the Democrats just don't care. So there is no rebellion against ineffective party leaders.
3
actually, Dems do care about Citizens United and its attendant corruption of the political process. But the remedy is legislative -- and campaign finance reform is very very difficult (especially when Rs control Congress)
1
Sounds like a call for the Democrat Party to double-down on the pandering to special interests. It didn't help them in the last election. Is that all they've got??
4
“In the face of authoritarianism, the response is not authoritarian democracy but the authority of democracy.”
French President Macron
Kool-aid is cheap. So is tea.
Democrats drink of a fine aged wine of life, a wine that insures everyone a decent place in this Country. This wine is Democracy.
9
There is no "liberal tea party" because those of us on the left care about facts, policies, American values, and the future of the country.
164
There should be one party that speaks for the common interest of those who have concerns about the country, socially, economically and ecologically; that does not serve the monied interests; that does champion fairness and equality and does not tolerate hatred of those others who do not round out to the American identity and who, in fact may be starkly different in unimportant ways from the average Joe or Joan. If the Tea Party has taught or brought us anything it is divisiveness, and there should be a party that despises divisiveness as a matter of policy. There are splinter groups of Democrats who insist that their vision is clearest and their cause is most noble, but now is the time to defer the individual causes in favor of uniting all of them in order to serve the common needs of the common people.
78
The tea party was just a use that money & right wing media had for a segment of Republican voters. Some of those tea-party people (and some of the "non-deplorable" Trump supporters) could easily find a home on the left if issues were framed more coherently. The only use the power structure has for the left is as a straw man on right wing media, or as the compromiser who's frightened enough of the insanity to vote for conservative Democrats.
A political culture in which the loudest voices think that Obama was an America-hating socialist, and that Trump is a reformer, is a culture where meaningful discussion & argument are being prevented. It isn't about left vs right, or coastal vs fly-over, or elite vs that other elite that condemns eliteness. It isn't, above all, about smart vs. stupid. It's about propaganda and manipulation. It's about making enough noise to prevent democracy. Of course there's no place for a leftist tea party in this show. There isn't even a place for a real conservative tea party--there's only room for corporate con artists.
15
Really great assessment here. It’s mutt vs Jeff/ good cop- bad cop writ large.
1
It’s all about the constituencies that actually vote. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is dominated by young people. They make a lot of noise—literally and figuratively—then don’t bother to show up on Election Day, especially during midterm elections. “Conservative” Democrats (i.e., centrists) skew older, and older voters do show up. Hence, a more moderate, less ideologically rigid party on the left.
7
I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat. -- Will Rogers
12
The right came up with the term identity politics to attack liberals who identity with the discriminated, disadvantaged, oppressed. If we are all equal, at least under the law, than anyone treated unjustly under color of law is an example of our future unjust treatment.
The GOP has increasingly identified groups to attack for taking away privilege from "you", and the GOP will protect "you" from "them". The right sees the world as zero sum NEGATIVELY. If you get paid, then I don't.
Liberals understand zero sum as positively benefiting all. Only by you getting paid can I be paid. When you get paid more, I get paid more. It can't be otherwise, for long. If you get paid more than everyone else, you will have all the money and no one else will have any to pay you or anyone.
The GOP has tried to pick losers in order to pick GOP favored winners, but the GOP favored winners have been rewarded with little to nothing. Whites have not seen gains from fighting equality for non-whites. Nor white men gains from fighting equality for women.
Democrats win greater equality for all by fighting against each wrong against an individual, a class, a group.
Rights for blacks increase rights for browns, rights for gays increase rights for women. And rights and respect for those groups, those identities benefit white men who are different, maybe nurturing, or weak. Hawking was weak, but the civil rights movement benefited a white man who in the past was hidden away.
12
Democrats are progressive. Democrats are diverse. Being both progressive and diverse is the great strength of the Democratic Party.
Organizing coalitions of diverse people is not and easy task.
That why Will Rogers once said, "I don't belong to any organized party, I'm a Democrat."
Democrats believe that when we work together we can make government work for everyone. Republicans believe that when they work together they make government work for the Koch Brothers and their close personal friends.
20
Missing in this discussion is the profound negative effect of money in politics poisoning any chance of achieving the public good. That is what progressive reform is up against. The problem remains the 1%.
38
Democratic policies tend to lead to programs, which then tend to take on a life of their own and gradually become bloated self-serving mutations of their original intent.
Republican programs tend to lead to policies, which then tend to...
How's about Democrats have a heart, and Republicans are heartless. Just look at what they support. More guns, more military, less social programs, less immigration, fewer regulations on clear air and water, etc.
Democrats have an ideology, it's treat others as you would want them to treat you. Help the less fortunate, improve public education, fix our infrastructure, etc.
28
In other words, Democratic ideology is pretty much that of the major religions of the world, including Islam: Do unto others as you would have done unto you, aka the Golden Rule. Republican ideology can be summed up by the other golden rule (noncaps intentional): He who has the gold makes the rules.
4
Whoever wrote this piece isn't on Facebook or Twitter. Believe me, there is a lot of in-fighting on the Left too.
8
There is always a lot of in-fighting on Facebook and Twitter, no matter the subject. Those places tend to be where the extreme far left/progressives hang out. You know the ones who just couldn't stomach voting for Clinton, thereby, giving us Trump. To be fair they were whipped up considerably by the Russian hackers.
1
"Democratic voters tend to view politics as an arena of intergroup competition...," this is pretty much how it IS...what it WAS, when it was the party of the people, was a voice that called "discrete interests" to join unified efforts in behalf of shared goals, such as the advancement of labor, no matter personal differences, the lunch pail was both the reality and the symbol. What might pass for a tea party, what the press refers to with legible sarcasm as "progressives," the vestiges of which were attacked by debbie, hillary's henchwoman, when she did in bernie has since been smothered. It is a hijacked democratic party, hillary's party, that has shifted toward wall street and nullified opposition to that shift by its appeal to "discrete interests," rather to divide than unify them, and, so, turn that pandering into votes and their voices rather into the shouts of a mob than the common voice of a choir. As they were, democrats needed no "tea party," as they ARE, divided and having nothing to offer save anti-trump rage, there is little hope that any form of corrective, including a strong rallying voice, will find any oxygen.
1
Well, IMHO of course, there are two reasons there is no Democratic Party Tea Party.
First, Democrats would not wear hats with tea bags attached, waving in the breeze and flapping in their faces.
Second, Democrats go to protests without (a) being paid to do so, or (b) rounded up at senior homes or similar locations where the unwitting reside.
Just look at the news stories and interviews at the time the Tea Party launched -- the truth of these statements is out there!
18
"Democrats would not wear hats with tea bags attached, waving in the breeze and flapping in their faces."
No, they just wear pink caps with sexual imagery.
1
“No compromise,” I remember hearing very clearly from the Tea Party movement when they first started to organize and articulate their mission. They implored their leaders in congress to slash and burn their way to ideological purity.
Compromise is of course essential to a working democracy where a government of and by the people is messy business with lots of give and take. The ACA is a good example of this. If we on the left had our way, we’d have a single payer health care system like those of many other advanced economies around the world. But, we had to settle for a bi-partisan compromise based on a Republican idea first implemented in Massachusetts under Republican governor Romney.
I believe most Democrats understand that pragmatic solutions involving lots of compromise are the only answer to extremely complex global problems. Obama and Clinton were both pragmatists. Sometimes I wish these so-called Tea-Party conservatives would just fess up and admit what it is they really want; a one-party system governed by an authoritarian leader with the backing of a strong military where we all have to tow the party line and dissent is punished with an iron fist.
40
I'd add one point to your last paragraph: if the Tea-Party conservatives did fess up and admit they would only be satisfied with the government you describe, they would also demand that it be known as a government of freedom and liberty!
We must always acknowledge that many Americans who call themselves conservative are radicals for whom the first of first principles is the perversion of language. If they have ever read Orwell, they tend to think he was providing a guide suggesting how to pervert language rather than a criticism of the perversion of language.
9
Translation:
Republicans are petulant children.
14
The problem with American politics is the lack of a real socialist party. The poor are usually too unorganized to defend themselves. The failure of the American public school system has made them victims of their own ignorance. Twelve percent of Americans still have no health insurance. Rich white people are indifferent to blacks being killed in astronomical numbers. There were 750 homicides in Chicago last year. The poor are the most likely to join the army and lose their lives in America’s never ending war against Muslims. The best solution is to leave America.
10
The right is funded by a 100 or so very rich people willing to invest in changing policy to save them money or make then money and finding sycophants with no morals and no ethics willing to lie and vote for them whatever the cost...they pay them well and that seems to be enough for these people.
There are plenty of rich people on the left but they are not going to spend their fortune to enact universal healthcare, daycare for all and quality education - they fund their specific programs and leave the rest up to us
It is up to us - the people to vote for politicians that represent our needs - ask your representative how they will vote on what really matters nd then vote your conscience. Stop with the identify politics and pay attention to policy..living wage, healthcare, education, infrastructure, the safety net, - how will their policies move America forward?
39
Except that "identity politics" on the left simply means trying to ensure that minorities, the poor and women have the same rights as wealthy white males
3
The problem with the Democratic Party is that everything they try to do is contradicted by the Corporate presence in the room to which the Dems have come to depend on to finance elections and to fluff their own pockets. They cannot see, or are unwilling to see, that the inexorable progress of the predatory and cannibalistic American brand of Capitalism has captured our government, our towns and cities, our culture, and our lives. This is why we never had a single-payer health insurance program. This is why Clinton signed into law a bill to eliminate Glass-Steagall. This is why Obama never sent Wall Street crooks to jail. Et cetera.
Until the Democratic Party is willing to stand up to Big Money and concern itself with the fortunes of the middle and working classes, we are going to have a problem that will get worse and worse. We are already run by an Oligarchy. If a crisis happens because, well, because human greed will be human greed and human stupidity does what stupid does best –– it stays stupid –– then there will be no democracy or human leadership to turn things around. Oligarchies tend to run on their own narrow-minded steam.
90
If you want a Democratic party that “stands up” to the monied interests in the GOP, you are asking for a party to remain a minority part destined to lose. Money talks and we all know what walks. As long as those with money can affect outcomes through contributions that buy air time and therefore what we hear and see, vast amounts of money are needed to counteract right wing lies and convince voters to vote their interests. Otherwise, you’re just bringing a knife to a gunfight.
4
it seems to me that you are being quite one-sided. you point your finger at only Democrats who (wrongfully) have joined the Republican party at the bottom of the financing ethics barrel. Did it even occur to you to criticize Republicans? Truly, that is a question you should ask yourself. The answer would probably be revealing.
6
You don't need money if you have votes, and money is not the only way to get votes.
You start by having an agenda that appeals to a broad range of people and getting ordinary people fired up about it.
That's how Bernie Sanders won 22 primaries and came within a couple of percentage points of winning others, despite an almost complete blackout in the corporate media until the movement was too big to ignore.
Hillary Clinton--and no, I don't hate her--depended too much on big money contributors and wooing Republican women and too little on taking her case directly to the voters. What was the deal with never visiting Wisconsin or ignoring the pleas of Michigan Democrats for help from the campaign?
(Just for the record, I don't think either Hillary or Bernie should run in 2020. They're too polarizing at this point, not to mention older than Reagan.)
it seems to me that when the external fights erupt in the Democratic party regime it leads to a third party candidate. For example Ralph Nader which effectively split the Democratic vote and some would say led to the election of George W Bush.
In Politics as in so many other areas compromise between people and groups holding different opinions is often the most effective way to move forward.
A thank you to the authors for showing this in practical terms for the two political parties. it is not something that I have previously considered
10
While I agree with the authors that Democrats tend to recognize the achievement of policy successes as an important characteristic of their elected officials, I wonder if using the gubernatorial candidacy of Cynthia Nixon was the best example to use.
The authors write “ To prevail, Ms. Nixon will need to convince party-aligned groups not only that she is more sympathetic to their concerns but also that she is well equipped to work the levers of government to deliver concrete policy achievements.” Why should this be so hard for her to prove? She is a seasoned advocate who knows how Albany works.
But most of all, and I can’t believe that the authors did not pick up on this irony: Nixon is running against the man who has allowed the Independent Democratic Coalition to thrive, keeping power in Albany in the hands of the Republicans. I mean, come on.
26
The reason Democrats do not need a Tea Party is that they can argue and govern in good faith. One needn't be much of an ideologue to stand for truth and honor, both of which the Republicans have completely abandoned. Those are the Democrats' core values. The rest we can work out together.
365
Really? Argue in good faith? As when the DNC and the Hillary campaign colluded to rig the primary. Please. The Democratic establishment does not represent their base, which is why they lost the election to Trump.
21
Let me make a minor correction for you. The Democrat's core values are "win at all cost" liberally engaging in tactics of lying, cheating, smearing, and rigging. Democrat core values include endorsing political candidates engaged in money laundering, and maintaining classified government information on personal servers in violation of Federal law, who run for political office. Democrat core values include defending government officials at the highest levels who engage in weaponizing the IRS as a tool of intimidation, against those who are outspoken opponents.
In short, Democrat "core values" are rotten to the core.
Glad I could help clarify that for you.
4
I became an independent before the election due to the amount of hatred vented towards anyone in the flyover states. Even in the 'pure Red' state of Oklahoma almost a third of people voted for Hillary, but in these pages they lumped together with everyone else and written off as ignorant racists. Nothing seems to have improved, if anything Democrats seem to have hardened in their position.
5
This piece stresses the advantages of coalition politics. A big tent makes it easier to attract broad support for a party's candidates and agenda, while emphasizing the importance of compromise within the coalition, in order to accomplish anything.
At the same time, however, a coalition makes it harder to mobilize unified support within the party to work for the enactment of measures favored by any one segment of the alliance. The need to establish priorities requires stiff bargaining, frequently leaving some groups dissatisfied with their place in line.
Coalitions also face serious obstacles in developing an overarching vision for the society, an important step in convincing outsiders that the party can transcend its image of a grab bag of special interests, unconcerned with the welfare of the entire community.
Astute political leaders can overcome these weaknesses, but they will have to perform better than Hillary Clinton, whose many virtues did not include the ability to articulate a clear message showing how the Democrats' laundry list of legislative goals would benefit the white working class, as well as women and minority groups. Her campaign far surpassed Trump's in terms of the intellectual content and consistency of her promises, but not with respect to the simplicity of its theme. "MAGA" was and is a fraud, but it spoke to the deepest needs of many Americans. FDR's promise of a "new deal" demonstrates that simple slogans can contain real substance.
143
No.
It means that the "poorly educated" (trump's words, not mine) rightists are gullible children.
They actually thought trump cared about them.
Sad really.
14
Hillary could not be an effective messenger because her aides and campaign workers were too arrogant, assuming that she was guaranteed a victory, especially against a candidate like Donald Trump. Their arrogance cost them the WH seat. Forget Comey, Russians etc. Ask the people of PA, MI, OH, WI who voted for Obama, not once but twice, but when it came to Hillary, they turned around and voted for Trump. What changed? These folks probably did not even have facebook accounts. They knew in their hearts that Hillary had failed to address their concerns by not even visiting them (whereas Bernie had resonated with all their grievances concerns angst). Similarly the black voters who traditionally voted democrat, Hillary's folks assumed these black voters would come out in strong numbers, like they did for Obama. That too in red states where their votes did not really matter. Those highly paid consultants and pollsters in Hillary's campaign, were fooled into complacency.
13
If MAGA -- Make America Great Again -- is a fraud, then how does it speak to the deepest needs of most Americans? The truth is, the CONCEPT is not a fraud -- even if you hate Trump or think he used the acronym cynically & frivolously. The CONCEPT is dear to the hearts of most Americans, even many liberals. What was Hillary's slogan? "I'm with HER!" -- it was all about HER, Hillary -- not about the American people. Anyone who can't the see difference here is pretty willfully blind.
3
There have been various books, including one by Winston Churchill, with the title "While England Slept"; and I can't think of a better parallel to describe where the Democrats are today. They slept for decades while the Republican Party imposed a deeply ideological, and negative, stamp on the nation.
The Dems desperately need to come across as ideological if they are serious about becoming the governing party again for any length of time. They did so once even as a coalition of various interests. They can do it again, without being extremists. Not once recently have I heard the Democratic Party as an entity forcefully, consistently and without embarrassment advocate the idea of Government as a force for the good of the people.
The Constitution twice refers to The General Welfare. The Dems should seize that noble and powerful ideological phrase, and make it their own. Even as the different parts of the Democratic coalition may differ about the details, it should leave no doubt whose side they are on.
283
Oh yes, and the "general welfare", by definition, must include most of the center!
3
The Democrats could use a good dose of ideology. In other words, a backbone where they articulate core Democratic beliefs and go to the mat defending those beliefs. Not a Chuck Schumer saying "For every blue-collar voter we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two to three moderate Republicans in the suburbs of Philadelphia. And you can repeat that in Ohio and Wisconsin, etc."
How'd that strategy turn out for you Chucky? Good enough for the Democrats to make you their leader.
16
Not the Dems so much as the bought and payed for Dem leadership.
7
Democratic party being a coalition of interest groups that had figured out that their group's interests are best met by working together - rather than being a coalition of people striving for the better future of the country as a whole - is and will be a problem for the party with millions of voters who otherwise wholeheartedly reject Republican ideological obsessions. No nation had been successful long term when the government was a patronage machine for the tribal groups of any kind.
21
I agree with what you say about Democrats becoming a patronage machine for tribal groups on the inside. That was largely how Hillary campaigned, particularly her hope to scoop up the women's vote. But if you base you political strategy on tribal groups, some will always get more than others and some will be on the outside. That is how Trump got elected; many, many people saw themselves outside the favored of the Democratic Party. Hillary's women looked around and saw husbands and sons.
In contrast to Hillary, Bernie Sanders tried to appeal to voters based on universalist ideology - against corporations, for the government. He believes, incorrectly in my view, that corporations run the country. At least, his was an honest point of view. Unfortunately, the social justice warriors, who dominate the party, are happy with powerful corporations who follow the party line. Example, Google fires a worker who challenges policies promoting women and supports Obama's election.
1
Seems to me the Dem coalition “interest groups” are united in the belief that by addressing the specific aspirations of each coterie the entire country benefits. There is a lot of overlap among these groups, and they all share a goal of equal rights, better served by government.
3
It’d be news for...just about everybody outside the echo-chamber of the US media that the left is less ideologically driven than the right. The USSR? Venezuela? The Red Brigades? Cambodia? China? Hello, Twentieth Century! Of course, the counter-argument is that the Democrats are not a left-wing party and I would agree. This is why I am a registered Democrat. But to argue that the political left has no potential for ideological monstrosity is to show a truly astonishing degree of ignorance. And since nature abhors vacuum, Bernie Bros and other assorted escapees from the Red Century are periodically trying to muscle their way into the empty slot of left-wing ideological dogma.
36
"... to argue that the political left has no potential for ideological monstrosity is to show a truly astonishing degree of ignorance"
That's probably why no one is making that argument. Where do you see it being argued? Certainly not in this column.
4
The reason we have left wing ideological dogma is because the democrats have given us an elitist society for the rich. They have failed to provide a decent society for poor, working class and middle class people. Look back to LBJ and see what they used to offer. Basically now all they offer us is high rents and high taxes and a high cost of living. We'll all be driven to red states. The democrats have failed. Trump is the Frankenstein monster who represents their failure.
10
Mor: you are too young to remember, but the Democrats were "hijacked" in 1972 by the extreme left wing faction of the party, and put up a candidate who was dramatically rejected by voters in a massive historical landslide. Look it up.
2
This analysis is too kind to both sides.
On the GOP side, the tea party movement was fueled by ideology, yes, but also in equal or greater measure by anti-intellectual "burn it all down" culture.
For the Dems, there is a powerful and persistent force--Nader and the Greens, Bernie and the progressive movement's litmus tests, for example--pushing for purity and away from the center. For some of the reasons cited here, this group does not congeal as easily as the 'Tea Party' but has nonetheless had a major effect on policy platforms and electoral results throughout an extended period.
67
What is a "BernieBro"? Is it someone who wants to help people get healthcare but doesn't think it has to be done through profit based insurance systems that enrich the few and scam the many? Is it someone who wants livable wages? Is it someone who wants to avoid another financial crisis and who deplores banks ripping off its customers? Is it someone who didn't want to invade Iraq and warned fellow Dems about the problems an invasion would cause? Or someone who tried to warn the Democratic leadership that their policies had resulted in the loss of 1000 legislative seats? Yeah, those "BernieBros" really messed it up for the Wasserman Schultzes and Hilaries by reminding them about the things the Democratic Party used to stand for. Bernie didn't lose the race against The Trumpocity. That belongs to the so called moderates who failed to convince enough people that the compromised Democratic Party would actually do something for them. I voted for Hilary, and she and her milquetoast brand of Democracy should be ashamed of how they let America down.
98
Doesn't pass the BernieBro's "litmus test," eh? 1) please recognize how terms like BernieBro are demeaning and belittling to a sizable base of voters. 2) maybe he does have some absolutes which he believes Democrats ought to adhere to (not cozying up to Wall Street, blindly entering trade deals without ensuring the welfare of laid off American workers to-be, etc..) , but please recognize that he's just as practical as the "centrist" democrats in other ways. He knows you need to win first before you can make any practical change. https://www.npr.org/2017/04/20/524962482/sanders-defends-campaigning-for...
Maybe he doesn't pass YOUR litmus test for what it means to be a democrat.
12
Yes. It would be those guys. But, you forgot something very important. Their sense of entitlement, disgust for women and general inability to behave like an adult. Oh, there is one more thing. Most of them believed everything the Russians concocted about Hillary and refused to vote at all. Hence, we have Trump as our 45th president. How's that working for ya?
Really? The BernieBros and Occupy folks are the Left's TEA Party equivalent . Some say (like the NYT, many times over) that BernieBros cost Hillary the election, I'm pretty sure they exist.
83
interesting how everyone cost Hillary the election, except for Hillary.
61
We were supposed to believe that liberal and progressive men hate women so much that they supported Sanders and cost Hillary the presidency? I have news- Hillary was the second most hated candidate and she ran a campaign so badly that she lost to the most hated candidate. Time to put the divisive “ Bernie Bro “ fiction to rest. The majority of liberals had to hold their noses while pulling the lever for Hillary in an effort to save themselves from trump. That’s not how elections are won.
28
You're partially right. I do indeed exist. But i didn't cost Hillary the election, Hillary and the Democratic party cost themselves the election. Bernie or no Bernie, you picked the one candidate i was never going to vote for under any circumstance. Bernie, or even Joe Biden in a pinch, would have at least gotten you a Democratic vote from me. What it got you instead was a write-in.
29
There's no "liberal tea party" because people that lean left tend to be intelligent and able to read more than a bumper sticker.
497
I agree, Democrats have the false belief the electorate is intelligent and will make the right decisions. Therefore there is no need to form a coalition to scare voters into a progressive mind set. The Republicans figured this out years ago. Therefore the Tea Party came about so voters would vote against their own self interests and support idiotic Republicans. Keep your government hands off my medicare does not have a progressive come backer. It's still my favorite right wing slogan used by the Tea Party and the voters bought it.
34
They may be disorganized and not have a catchy name, but the left absolutely has it's extremists and socialists -- Bernie? Elizabeth Warren? -- if anything, the Democrats are at risk in 2020 of splintering along these lines -- moderate vs. extreme left. We all know what happened LAST time this was a problem -- 1972.
1
Ha ha, keep telling yourself how superior you are, that is a sure way to win
4
"To prevail, Ms. Nixon will need to convince party-aligned groups not only that she is more sympathetic to their concerns but also that she is well equipped to work the levers of government to deliver concrete policy achievements."
"Well equipped"? And that would be because of her vast political experience as an actress?
26
I think the current president and a past governor of California have pretty much proven that movie actors and reality TV personalities are unfit to govern. But they have name recognition and if you never read a newspaper or a book or magazine (hello Sarah Palin), I guess name recognition counts at the ballot box.
4
How about if she was a game-show host like the draft dodger in there now?
2
Al Frankenstein and Ronald Reagan pulled it off...
1
Well said, however it’s not lost on me that this agenda of “social groups” has morphed into the broader debate over identity politics. Truth is that the Democratic Party does share a common philosophy: that government is the means by which we cultivate the common good. As Democrats we need to focus on how mutually beneficial this form of governance is for our society.
134
The "broader debate" over so-called "identity politics" should be disavowed by Democrats, just as we should denounce fictions about "political correctness." Both are rhetorical weapons invented by conservatives to undermine a real democracy that demands equal standing for all of its citizens. There is no "identity politics" and no "political correctness," just the same old conservative racism, misogyny and Christian triumphalism.
13
Democrats believe that government can do good and work to make that possible. Republicans want to govern/loot government. It always take 8 years of a democratic rule to clean up after the republicans. That’s it. Lived long enough to see the difference.
344
If it is so wonderful and everyone can see it is wonderful....then why do voters typically KICK OUT Democrats after a two-term Democratic Presidency? Just saying you are "wonderful" is not enough. If you have not convinced voters that their lives are better than they were 8 years previously.....then you have failed.
4
Me too. I'm 78 and have paid attention since I was a little girl. The Dems always clean up the messes the Republicans leave. Look at the mess FDR cleaned up from Hoover, the Great Depression. Of course it took WWII to finish the job. It was the greatest stimulus in history.
16
Losing the election by three million votes was not a mandate to put a grotesque, unqualified clown in the White House. Is that the best you can do? And, yes, somebody had to clean up the Great Recession the Republicans left behind the last time they had the presidency. Looking forward to the party's next debacle.
Why? Because Democrats have more useful things to do with their time, because the actual reason for the existence for the Tea Party was/is to perpetuate the status quo. Meaning, white Male supremacy. Nothing enrages SOME elderly, and SOME middle aged white people like even the possibility of "their" money going to "those" people. Not to mention giving actual rights to uppity Women. Fortunately, they are dying off in greater numbers than Democrats. Bring on the comments, I've got my wine.
I'll wait.
248
I have been hearing optimistic predictions about the reactionaries "dying off" for half a century. Unfortunately today's young liberals have a depressing tendency to become tomorrow's old conservatives. America's liberal awakening is just around the corner . . . and always will be.
9
@Phyllis -- it was NO coincidence that the Tea Party was hatched during President Obama's first term. "That person" in the White House was just too much for the many of the elderly and middle class folks in the country.
25
Appreciate the SOMEs but if I had to nitpick...
"Nothing enrages SOME elderly, and SOME middle aged white people like even the possibility of "their" money going to "those" people. "
I would say thats not an old white guy thing. I think redistribution of wealth is something that most people despise when its their wealth. Black, white, brown, man or woman most people would hate handing over huge portions of what they've earned to be spread out to others
4
The working class is not an "interest group" but the majority of the population.
There is no mystery why American leftists have no ideology. The philosophy of the workers, since the 19th century, has been Marxism. But the teaching of Marxism was outlawed de jure in the US in 1948 to 1957 and de facto ever since. The fact that half of America thinks anything left of extreme militarism and super patriotism is "Marxist Communism" just proves this point.
Americans get only two points of view: the pro-corporate, pro-war "liberal" media and the fascist, racist demagogue of talk radio and Mr. Trump.
Since no American mainstream media would dare to hire a Socialist commentator, where are working people to learn their own left ideology?
231
Win or lose, they (Wall Street and the military industrial complex, big pharma, big agriculture, etc..) win.
19
Yes, Red Allover, let's strive to reach the egalitarian heights of Cuba and Venezuela.
Equal misery, shared equally (except for elite party members, of course).
5
Yes that's what is wrong with USA democracy.....we have no true voice of alternatives to the duolopy governing. We need strong 3rd party representation. We need more diversity of though/ideology in government. For me the 2 party system doesn't fit.
13
...Because the entire party is a radicalized group of fringe elements.
20
Actually, no, the core belief of a Democrat like myself is that taking care of our working class is critical to the success of a society. Nothing radical about that, since most of the nation is made up of, well, working stiffs. A nation that doesn't look after its workers is making a huge mistake.
You only see the "fringe," probably because you mostly watch Fox News. It makes me laugh that Republicans vote for people who want to slash government, eliminate SS and Medicare, and give big tax reductions to the wealthy--as if this will help the average working stiff. It won't. Wake up.
82
They talk a good game, dividing people with #MeToo, #BlackLivesMatter, etc, but they govern like center right corporatists. I used to be a Democrat, but I want a crackdown on illegal immigration via eVerify, a laser focus on jobs and reducing inequality (higher taxes on the rich and corporations, and real safety nets) and I want to stop slicing the electorate by color, gender and sexual proclivity. Am I left or right? Sanders is not perfect, but he came closer than anyone else to what I want. And I did hold my nose and vote for Her Highness in the election, and I'm a 57 year old woman, not a bro, thanks.
9
So right—about the GOP. You can't get much more radical and fringy than the tiki-torchbearing crowd chanting "Jews will not replace us," and yet the leader of the GOP saw them as good people and nothing to get too disturbed about.
11