Republicans and Independents who switched to the Democratic party probably vote for centrist Democrats.
2
Neither Hillary, her financial backers or her handlers have any intention of giving the party to real progressives. A few labels, yes, and a couple of promotable, progressive issues, too, but control? Are you kidding? Never!
2
Were these the same people that were completely wrong in 2016? What real credibility do these "consultants" really have?
3
Of course no mention of the two party system, the gerrymandering, the Electoral College, the inconsistencies of the different voting laws county by county and then some. Not of the above will change in my life time, let the Trumpers do their thing.
2
You will never get medicare for all, as long as big public and private unions are in control of their membership health insurance. If you are in a union, you have cadillac care at an affordable price with low deductibles and co-insurance.
2
I don't care what anybody says. The Dems went too far to the left especially on immigration in 2016 and it cost them. And it will cost them again if they do the same thing. I hope they wised up
3
Kinda of a muted editorial from a newspaper that takes extreme leftist / progressive positions on most issues. ... I guess after the election it will go back to business as usual..
I don't know what paper you are reading. The Editorial Board of the NYT has been consistently dismissive of the left wing of the Democratic party since about forever. See just about all of the coverage of the Sanders campaign in 2016. See the very article you are commenting on!
1
The article points toward a strategy that even the most ardent "socialists" can understand. If you don't vote to put a Democrat in a seat, even one who is "establishment", the GOP --- a truly fascist set of lying hacks that scream for Der Leader --- will have the seat instead.
Please do not vote for any candidate other than the Democrat. No Steins, No Johnsons, please!
You've got to help cut the knees off trump by putting the loyal opposition in charge of the House. Many people voted for him in 2016 simply because they did not like Hillary much. Those voters have nothing like it this time.
3
Been saying this all year. Can you please notify Michelle Goldberg?
2
While the Repubs have moved to the ultra right wing fringe over the last few decades - to the point that their erstwhile hero, Ronny Reagan, would not qualify as a Repub anymore - he was way too liberal for modern ultra right wingers - the Dems have remained pretty much center, even center-right. There are very few true liberals and progressives in the Democratic Party. - literally a half dozen at most. The rest have been pulled to the right by the hysterical right wingers constantly whining about how bad it is for politicians to try to improve health care, schools, workplace safety, clean environment, prevent bank fraud, etc.
It is about time we stop coddling all those ignorant right wingers. Stop worrying about whether they will be offended by the institution of good government. Get the job done and bring the country back to something civilized.
4
The Democrats will never regain the good faith of the voters, as long as they do not jettison the leftist radicals, loud-mouthed politically correct, militant vegans, anti-tobacco but pro-cannabis, and opponents of the 2nd Amendment.
5
"Progressive" is issue-by-issue, and if Medicare for All in some form is now embraced by most Democrats, then the progressives have won on health care. Addressing inequality is another progressive issue that has been broadly accepted, the Clintons notwithstanding.
The task for Democrats now is to unite around a presidential candidate who is unifying, as Obama certainly was, probably a progressive but not a "socialist" (whatever that means these days). Elizabeth Warren, anyone?
7
I think it's obvious that, like it or not, progressive and corporate Democrats will ultimately have to compromise with each other. If Corporate Democrats and Progressives can't agree on making College tuition free, for example, would it really be so hard for them to agree to significantly reduce student debt?
In our last presidential election, Corporate Dems thought it was safe to ignore and disparage Progressive energy instead of bringing it in. The result: Clinton lost.
7
DCCC is the same group that denied Bernie Sanders a seat at the table, misled the media about his popularity, and was "All Hillary, all the time." I know Bernie supporters who will never vote for the democratic est. again, and I don't blame them.
Hillary was a rotten candidate who ran a rotten campaign ("I'm with Her"? spare me). A better Democratic candidate would have won, and spared us Trump.
Hillary palled around with war criminal Henry Kissinger, gave $200,000 speeches to Wall Street, and pretended to be for the working class.
9
Before they became Progressives; before they became Liberal, weren't they all just democrats? If the Progressive and Liberals in the Democratic party should by any chance get their feelings hurt because one has more impact than the other and they pick up their marbles and quit the game, the Republicans who are "all in" for this president - and you needn't take my word for it, but ask the Republican Committee Chairwoman of Ohio who declared in an interview with the local Cincinnati paper on April 10, 2017 that she and her husband were "all in" for the president.
And she was raised in one of the most liberal communities in Ohio. Still she succumbed to the siren song of this president as did 60 million other Republicans and independents and even some dyed in the wool democrats.
Second. Republicans rarely vote for a democrat whom they all think of as evil. That's what their president says and they are "all in" for their president. Incidentally the Republican party's priorities are simple. First, the president!
Second, the Party and then anywhere from third to beyond, the 325 million Americans who make up this country.
So my simple advice to the democratic party is this: If you are a progressive or a liberal then both of you better start thinking like a Democrat, otherwise you can expect 6 more years like the two you have been going through.
And you know as well as some "non-all-in" Republicans those six years will be brutal.
3
The #1 thing that the Democrats need to do (after getting rid of their current leadership) is to "Learn to speak fluent Red State". They do not and are abysmal at this.
Practically every single issue that the left supports can be explained in simple terms that directly affect people - their families, their health, and their bottomlines. When the left seems to come across like "Hear-ye! Hear-ye! Listen to and adopt our brilliance from the great minds here on the coasts!", these people are going to tune-out.
Case in point: Greensburg, Kansas
Greensburg was devastated by a tornado. They have rebuilt and are "the greenest town in America"... and they are in a deep red state. Did Greensburgers miraculously become left-wing abortion-loving same-sex marrying progressives? Did the doom-and-gloom speech about global warming convince them to go green? No. Instead, the economic case was made to these people - that, in the long-run, they'd save money and be less reliant on foreign oil.
As another case in point, look at former Bush 43 GOP Solicitor General Ted Olson. Ted used conservative principles to advocate for same-sex marriage and was instrumental in ultimately getting Obergefell v. Hodges decided in the Supreme Court to ban prohibitions against same-sex marriage.
Democrats need to think outside the ivory tower and more like normal folk if they ever really want to make progress. The GOP has mastered that talent.
20
@VJR How about "Universal health care now -- because nothing else matters if you're dead." Voters have to be alive to be affected by any other policy, so let's be the party that wants to keep them alive.
1
@VJR
I wish I could up-vote you 100 times.
Alas, it is ivory tower speaking and thinking which is part of the self-satisfied pose of so many liberals, which is getting in the way of liberal policies and progress. "Vote for us, you backwards, hateful, stupid, ignorant hicks!" doesn't seem to be working as an election strategy.
3
@VJR
I wish I could up-vote you 100 times!
Alas, there is a trait among liberals of needing to first and foremost differentiate themselves as "the great minds here on the coasts!," smarter, better educated, more sophisticated, more enlightened, wiser, kinder, etc., as opposed to the knuckle dragging Neanderthals who don't identify as liberals.
The moment they drop the self-satisfied pose to reach out to the knuckle dragging Neanderthals on economic and practical terms, the GOP would wither and die, and liberal ideas and common sense would reign again.
In '04 Howard Dean got the base excited, but in the end people got behind John Kerry because, although no one was gaga over him, his war hero status seemed to be a slam dunk--and the goal was to defeat a vulnerable Bush. His asset became an albatross. Four more years of Bush.
This followed 2000 where people accepted Gore, but many were excited by Nader. Although I think Hilary would have been a better president, Obama captured the nation's imagination of who they wanted to be--8 years. Then Hilary lost in 16 to a guy who captured the anger of many and gave them a pithy slogan.
The lesson? People want to believe. Anger certainly gets some of the population out there, but hope and dreams and our possible best selves win. We need leaders to inspire.
When the Dems figure out what they stand for (which some seem to figuring out) they might actually pull off a big November.
4
"Communism is Christianity with a tomahawk," Churchill.
The progressive movement is energized, but not much evidence that it is taking over the party.
Which is sad, because Trump has shown us that we do not have to settle for incremental change. Just that his change is not good for the majority. If Dems abandon progressives and go back to Wall Street Politics as usual they can forget about any lasting comeback. We all want more than incremental change after doing without for decades living with no wage or benefit increases and maximum medical expenses. The choice of action they pursue this time may be their last chance.
5
Clearly, if the message is there and the right candidate is in place, progressives can win. There is a congressional candidate in West Virginia named Richard Ojeda, a 24 yr. Army veteran who served 4 deployments in Iraq, who is now running as a progressive democrat in this reddist of all states and has a very good chance of winning.
Like many in the armed forces, he originally was a Trump supporter, however, when he saw the sham of Trump and the Republicans unfolding and once back from Iraq where he saw young children in his own county actually living in a bad or even worse environment than in a war torn area, he changed his tune considerably by calling out Republicans whom had done absolutely nothing in the area he resides.
Instead of obsessing about Russia, Trump and all his foibles, talk about REAL issues and what Republicans are NOT doing for people whom have been bamboozled into thinking they are.
12
It is not what the primaries say about Democrats, it is what they say about the mentality of the voters.
A great many of them are voting for a pathological liar who does not care what he say, as long as it sounds good to them. In this case the more authoritarian he speaks, the better they like him. As we have seen for over a hundred years now, the GOP has managed to convince these people that taxes are their enemy, and that bureaucrats are running the country that businessmen know better. So they vote for a swindler, a thief who has gamed tax system, bankrupted several businesses, has had several hotels, a yacht, airplanes, repossessed, and that is the businessman they think he is.
Then they call themselves Christians and vote for the most anti-christian politician in our history. He carries along with him a coalition of GOP politicians for whom lying is the party way, It is not the future of Democrats that is at stake, it is the future of the country, of honest citizens vs. dishonest Donald and his sycophants.
11
@David Underwood
Sadly you and the democrats want to blame everything on Trump. And though Trump is a nightmare the disaster that is America started with Regan and made worse by Clinton's economic policies. Regan and slick willy are the perps that killed the middle class.
And if you think that only republicans lie you are living in an alternate universe. Cable news and social media were predicted by the great dystopian novelists, and the problem is not connected to one party or ideology.
The problem is that America is living in a virtual reality where nothing we see matters, only what we "feel" is true. In fact no matter how many times people's information is stolen on social media and the web they keep going back.
AMERICA TURN OFF YOUR CELLPHONE and search for the actual truth.
3
EDIT QUESTION:
I'm not getting this sentence:
"Moreover, establishment Democrats tended to win the nomination in districts that are most likely to flip from Democratic to Republican, meaning that the House Democratic Caucus that meets next January will probably be composed of fewer progressives than would be indicated by their numbers on the ballot."
Are Democratic and Republican supposed to be reversed, or am I just not grasping the logic?
3
@joel88s Based on red districts, progressives should become a smaller part of the Democratic caucus than of the slate of nominees because establishment Democrats are winning primaries in merely Republican leaning districts where they have a chance, whereas progressives are winning primaries in solidly Republican districts where they have no chance at all.
@joel88s The paragraph is poorly constructed and makes a questionable argument. It argues on the basis only of Republican leaning districts. It says progressives are getting the nomination in deep red districts where they don't have a chance, whereas establishment Democrats are getting the nomination in merely red leaning districts where they have a chance. It tells us nothing about blue districts.
2
Progressives are like shock troops. They are necessary for energy and new ideas, but they are better at nudging the giant, lumbering Democratic ship than they are guiding it.
Let's hope that Medicare for All gets real traction.
Let's hope, too, that the progressive hysteria over race, sexual orientation and gender, and absurd attitudes towards illegal immigration doesn't sink the ship of the Democratic Party. That is - without a doubt - the biggest vulnerability of the Democrats, and the GOP can't wait to exploit it.
7
Finally, some good news.
3
Progressives have not taken over...Yet. This is Brookings Institution working to keep big money in control. Pointing out that the DCCC won most of its endorsements while Our Revolution won less is a sloppy look at the situation. Firstly, DCCC endorsed where it was certain to win. DCCC doesn't stand for anything so they are just as likely to endorse a Republican that calls themself a Democrat as a moderately liberal democrat. You see progressives standing up for what is right even in red districts. They may not win this time but the message is out for next time. They are running against corruption. When that message starts to get through, No thanks to so called analysis (read manipulation) from Kamarck, the shift will be very big. Why?
Because No One Likes Corruption.
9
I guess Kamarck wants Democrats disgusted with their party to stay home.
3
Wow. Way to try to control the narrative!
We are progressives. We are not a progressive branch of the Democratic Party. We are not extreme left; medicare for all is not communism.
What we are is pretty tired of corporate shills running as Democrats. I thought this was pointed out in the last election. Go ahead and force another one through the primaries and you will see four more years of Trump.
23
@Jim K
If Democrats adopted (much of) the progressive economic platform while divorcing themselves from the toxic identity politics of the progressive left, they'll actually get somewhere with the electorate again.
8
@Livonian
But they won't. The progressive economic platform is what they won't push, because that's what their donors don't want. Otoh, identity politics doesn't hurt the bottom line of their donors, and they like the cheap labor, so that's what they will push.
Thank you, Ms. Kamark!
This Op-Ed explodes the nonsensical narrative around a radical coup emanating from the far left of the Democratic Party.
While I'm very happy with a resurgent progressive movement within the Democratic Party, a "takeover" of the party has not occurred. As Ms. Kamark points out, exactly two candidates identifying with the democratic socialist movement have won primaries against incumbents. In both cases, the incumbents were the most leftward leaning in the House.
Joe Crowley does not get credit for his progressivism. He is co-sponsor of two bills in the House expanding Medicare (HR 676 & HR 3748).
Crowley's sins were not ideological. Firstly, in his scramble for promotion through House leadership, he neglected to tend the garden back home. Secondly, he carries the imprimatur of the establishment with his chairmanship of the Queens County Democratic Committee. He is what we in New York call a "regular", shorthand for a regular Democrat, someone associated with the State and County organizations, as opposed to independent reformers. The State and County organizations have a well-earned reputation for corruption. Of course, not all regulars are corrupt, but there remains a certain stink about them that did not serve Crowley well in a "change election."
The democratic socialists are not taking over the party, and neither are they radicals. Their agenda looks more like old fashioned New Deal or Great Society policy than true socialism.
9
The DCCC, in my NJ-CD#7, fixed all of the Democratic committee’s in the district. With their dark money, they ran over progressive candidates who were financed by individual donors. The progressive candidate, Peter Jacob, gave Rep Lance a good run in 2016. The primaries this year totally eclipsed his efforts by the DCCC’s carpetbagger, Tom Malinowski. What should have been a shoe-in Democratic gain is presently a toss-up.
1
The most important, and encouraging statistic, you noted was that turnout was up 56% in 2018 primaries over 2014. If the November turnout is 56% more that the turnout in November, 2014, Dems will almost certainly capture the House and might even take the Senate. Issues don't matter a whit: this election is about Donald Trump and whether he should continue being President. The answer will be "no!" if 18-29s, minorities and women turn out at a 56% higher rate than they turned out in 2014.
4
Socialism is the battle cry.
Hear any loud Dem voices against this? Just ask Bernie...
4
The established Democratic Party is only one or two steps behind the Republicans in deep money corruption. We need to get big money out of politics and out of news sources.
10
The Democratic Party is the centrist party, it is just that Republicans are so far over to the extreme right, that even Reagan's policies seem socialist to them.
14
One of the important factors is that "establishment" Democrats know how much we have kept the country sane for decades. And we see many so-called progressives thinking that they are the be-all and end-all of policies that help people. That type of arrogance wears thin.
Finally, the evidence is that progressives lost the election for Clinton and got us Trump. Enough stayed home, and enough attacked Clinton (unfairly) for being the tool of big business that it made a difference.
Us pitiful establishment Democrats care more about the country than about being self-righteous on every issue.
Frankly, I'd be embarrassed to have a Sanders sticker on my car. Thank you, Bernie Sanders, for Trump.
9
A military soldier’s primary duty is to obey orders. You’ll never win a battle or war if a foot soldier tells the sergeant, “I can’t get up now its too early, or I can’t go outside it’s raining, snowing, too hot or too cold.” No, you must obey orders.
As President Lincoln said, “a country divided against itself cannot stand.” All political parties must come together as one America, under God, and maintain correct decency and morality for the sake of our little children and the future of our country.
Why does separation of church and state exist? Blessed be those that believe in His name: who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Without swinging to the left leaves the party in the hands of the establishment democrats. Establishment democrats failed to deliver on much of their platform. They did, in fact, sell out to oligarchs that pull their strings.
In American politics, there are only two parties. A third party can only hope to take over one of these parties and make it their avatar. Recently, we saw this with the Tea Party. Before the Tea Party, the Republicans were dead. Then, the Tea Party morphed into the fascists and their collaborators, who now own the party.
4
A somewhat plaintive note on use of statistics: The author indicates that the 2018 split in winning candidates between establishment and progressive was 140-101. This works out to a ratio of 58% to 42%. What was this ratio in 2016 and 2014? This information is not included, but should be because if the ratios were similar in all three years that fact is probably the "bottom line" in supporting her conclusion that there is no progressive wave.
5
We have a right wing Republican party and everyone else.
Independents now make up the majority of voters. Independents have a choice to make. Do they want a far right wing party to continue to control Congressional legislation, committees, investigations, the Presidency along with packing the Courts?
The National Democratic party will either be pulled to the center by Independents or it will continue to be a coastal party, under represented in National politics because of the distortions in representation created by our Constitution.
The occasional wins will never overcome this distortion. The Democratic Party at it's height had the Dixiecrats as a key to it's national dominance. That leg is now owned by the Republicans.
6
The poll you ran a few weeks ago was telling (The Best Way for Democrats to Win Working-Class Voters). The pollsters "asked 4,035 working-class voters in battleground races to name an elected official who was fighting for them, the top response was not a Republican or a Democrat. It was “no one.'” As long as the Dems are perceived as uncaring elitists, they will remain a minority party.
One more quote from the poll" two-thirds of Ohio Trump supporters agreed, when we asked them last summer, with a battery of progressive economic policies." Maybe it wouldn't be bad thing if the Progressives did take over for a while.
14
Politics is personality and popularity contests. When it's actually issues it's usually exaggerated right or left because those are the voters who vote issues rather than feelings or impressions. America doesn't really deserve democracy---too few vote, too few care, too many vote their feelings and don't do any of the hard work of civics. Truth has a liberal bias---we can prove that easily enough---but that has nothing to do with who will vote and who will be elected. We're not a serious people, let's face it.
4
If people voted, on whatever basis they want to, whether they read or watch television or play video games, America would be fine. A clear majority, probably 65 or 70%, can be trusted to vote with common sense and good will.
1
I wonder how many former Republicans and centrist Independents - suburban married women, white collar professionals, and similar types - are moving into the Democratic Party, and I wonder how they will change it as well.
Centrist Democrats gave us two two-term presidents, are likely to win back the House, and lost the last election by the barest of margins with a historically unpopular candidate. Centrism has a solid record of success.
Both Clinton and Obama lost their party's congressional majorities when they threatened to go too far left.
Right now there have been some progressive successes, but you also have a lot of progressive failures and moderate successes. We keep hearing about Ocasio Cortez, but what about Ben Jealous, who can't win a governorship in one of the "Bluest" states in the country?
It is a complex picture, but Democrats would be foolish to let their progressive wing take over. Most Americans want common sense and stability, not ideology or radical change.
9
@A F I don't think most of the voters who vote for Ds this year will be permanently with the D Party, although Ds are likely to continue to win in 2020 through 2024, but Nikki Haley is already working on her 2024 campaign, and she could very well win in 2028.
1
The Democratic Party is finished because America has decided to take a universal swing to the right. American voters increasingly see the dangers of liberalism, globalization and socialism the world over. They have decided it is time up for the sycophantic MSM, the virtue signaling, moralizing, effete elite, the false activism of Hollywood and the stupidity of gender / identity politics. They reject diversity and multiculturalism, which means stopping indiscriminate immigration: legal or otherwise.
The real kicker is the younger generations, who are far LESS liberal and much more conservative than their parents! Could anyone could have predicted that?
What follows are long, tortuous laments like this article. The author has not, and will never be able to grasp that its over: the madness of liberalism is finally dying and being replaced by a return to traditional, commonsence values that protect, not destroy, the nuclear family.
2
@Marco Polo
Interesting viewpoint, but very different from my world view. The Republicans have rejected political correctness, but that's just another term for being polite. Being polite used to be a big deal for Republicans.
I wouldn't bet your grocery money that liberalism is over--young people embrace socialism. Nearly everyone embraces a more free society--not laws against personal behavior. For example, 70% of Americans support abortion and 99% of women use birth control at some point. It's unlikely that we'll return to a time when people don't support family planning.
6
Good news from the Brookings Institution. Worst thing the Democratic party could do is to become "progressive" which nowadays is a close euphemism for "extremist". It would be a copy of Trumpism in the opposite direction. Bad for America, and very bad for the Democrats.
6
I would like the Democrats to stop focusing on trump & to start to work on issues that matter to citizens. By focusing on the issues, they will win in big ways & then they can work to change the trump policies to improve the lives of ALL citizens in the country. Stop trying to feed trump's raging base. Go for a firm, hard peaceful stance on citizens lives & stop worrying about your damn careers & money. Do something the republicans can't do...Be For the People! Health Care, Fair Taxes, Higher Wages, Roads you can actually drive on without blowing a tire, Clean Air, Water, & Soil, Freedoms to Live & Speak Our Minds, etc. We The People Want Representation not Rule.
11
I will not vote for any candidate who does not support Medicare for all. “Lesser of two evils” doesn’t work for me anymore.
11
@Zejee As long as the electoral system is not reformed, your decision will ensure that dt and his successors continue to drive your country and the world into an increasingly horrific situation.
5
This analysis doesn't matter to the GOP. They will keep saying Democrats are moving far left, just like they will keep saying Democrats are for mob rule, open borders, etc. etc. etc. The Republican Party under Trump can no longer claim to be a party of ideas. It is a party of divisive demonization of their opponents. They won't even run on their great idea tax cut, since it isn't a great idea at all and most people know it.
They have tactics (voter suppression, abusive gerrymandering, stack the court with hard right conservatives - partisan Republican ones if possible). Good ideas that lead to good governance, rather than perennially bad ones like trickle down economics? No. At least, not except for a very few who won't buck Trumpism right now, and Trumpism is all about old, simplistic ideas (MAGA) and tactics.
7
Unlike the Robber Baron-controlled republican party the Democratic party is made up of millions Socially Conscious people who care about each other and living relatively peacefully and prosperously in the world.
Republicans are more organized because they are the "business class" - the owners of resources and businesses. They have multiple clubs and organizations to use as gathering places and, basically, are of one mind. Get as much as you can for as little as you can. Keep wages down. Keep costs down. Keep profits UP.
It is wonderful to see robust grassroots movements to form organizations of like-minded Socially Conscious people across OUR United States of America. People are joining forces to create the kind of world WE want to live in. It is not the one The Con Don and his Robber Baron brethren picture.
The Good News and the real key is "independents" who do not adhere to any political party. The vast majority of them are strongly opposed to the direction The Con Don and his Robber Baron brethren are trying to take us.
Now we just need to make sure they vote November 6 and every election in the foreseeable future so WE can get OUR United States of America back - the one we love and will protect at all costs.
10
The only real mistake democrats made is trying to "play nice" and "play by the rules".
The sharks have taken over. Gentlemens' agreements that kept OUR government running well were abandoned by Traitor Mitch McConnell and friends. The "gentlemen" have left the room.
Time for democrats/independents to take off the gloves and take bold steps to restore/preserve true democracy - Social and Economic Equity for all - in OUR United States of America. Make new rules to do it (add two new justices to OUR U.S. Supreme Court) and pass unbreakable rules that make them stick. For instance, once we stack OUR courts with progressive judges pass a law/unbreakable rule that says EVERY federal judge must be approved by 60% of OUR senate. That will make the parties work together and restore civility in OUR Congress/Senate.
NOW.
4
We don't need a Progressive movement as much as we need a Sensible movement.
11
The progressive movement is relatively new, so identification numbers will not tell a complete story. However, look at the issues that are moving the establishment politicians and corporate executives to take action and it is clear that the energy in the Democratic Party is with the progressive movement.
The catalyst for the progressive movement is the wealth and income inequality issue and our government’s fascination with supply-side economics that has caused it. The issue has been set in bold script for all Americans to see by the passage of the Republican tax-cut bill and the wealthy corporate elites’ expenditure of the savings on stock buybacks rather than worker wage increases. This reality led to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos’s decision to raise his company’s minimum wage to $15 per hour to avoid the 100 percent worker welfare-support tax referenced in Senator Bernie Sanders’s living wage bill.
In the past year, conservative to moderate establishment Democrats have bowed to political reality and either sponsored or signed onto bills designed to bring economic justice to working Americans in the middle and lower classes. Additionally, progressives have introduced bills to bring participatory rights to American workers to give them the right to share in strategic corporate decision-making with executives. The concept, known as “co-determination,” is widespread in European countries which, as a result, have less wealth and income inequality than we have here in America.
5
In a little less than a year, in the 2016 democratic primaries, Bernie Sanders(with little or no name recognition) closed a 60 point gap on Hillary Clinton and won 22 states in the democratic primaries and he did it with democratic corporate/establishment roadblocks in place every step of the way. The fact that this progressive group has won as many seats as they have, without corporate money, also establishment roadblocks in place and have done it within a year, I would say is quite an accomplishment not, as the author states.
The fact remains unless the establishment democrats stop being obsessed with Russiagate, Trump and his nefarious activities, start actually grasping and continually promoting policies that offer a REAL alternative to Republicans, the party is finished and so is America. The reduction of almost 1000 democratic seats in the last ten years at the state and federal levels just further confirms it.
19
It would be interesting to see an analysis of how unsuccessful progressives' policy proposals had impacted the positions of more mainstream candidates that had received funding from the party. Not so simple, I know, but influence is not only achieved by those that win.
4
The author, like many pundits, fail to understand that the Democratic Party is in a battle of ideas. Each and every progressive challenger in the primaries, whether they won or lost their primary, pushed their opponents closer to progressive causes, which the general population favor by majorities. You can go down the list, from universal health care, environment, social justice, and progressive ideals are supported by the population, some in very wide majorities.
Progressive candidates, win or lose, improve the lot of the American people, by pushing the American people's preferences into the debate. Those progressive preferences make the Republican party candidates' positions on the issues appear radical and wildly out of step, providing the contrast that even the most ill-informed voter can see. Centrist Dems, left on their own, without a push from the Left, do not inspire, in the eyes of the voter, they are Republican-lite. Progressive Dems, by forcing the debate to something meaningful, are doing a huge favor to the centrist Dem party.
Centrist democrats don't inspire turnout, let's hope everyone by now understands that, until they are pushed into progressive positions on the issues. Progressive IDEAS inspire turnout, even if a progressive candidate does not advance to the general election.
15
It takes time to move a party significantly in one direction or another. It took 40-50+ years to move the GOP as far to the right as it is now. Moving the Dems left is not going to happen in 2 midterm cycles. This is the mistake democrats have made for a long time: the long game plan is what we need to focus on, not the next midterm. I like to consider this most recent crop of candidates a good start to a longer game plan. We may need to lose in a lot of these races in 2018, but running good quality candidates that may initially lose is what you have to do to make long term progress.
10
@ERISA lawyer Too many losses right now, with the GOP in anti-democracy, rightest-wing mode, will ensure no future democratic wins. Voter suppression and corporatism will consume us.
6
Let's be real at citizenship: speak about issues.
Democrats can't win much without talking about 3 issues:
1. Abortion - everyone wants fewer abortions, so let's reduce unwanted pregnancies with education and access to contraception, along with good education and jobs for women. Talk about the evidence of the decline due to these things. Don't be afraid to talk about this.
2. Guns - hunters need guns, some citizens want guns for protection. Acknowledge this. Don't waver. Yes, talk about getting automatic weapons off the street and some limits on gun-buying and selling. Again, be real, talk; this issue and abortion are two of the biggest Republican selling points/lying points.
3. Immigration - really, how can we take millions more into this country when we don't even take care of those that are here? We do need to focus on eliminating the criminal levels of poverty we have here, the grotesque inequality, the immoral concentration of wealth and property and power. We have much to already deal with here, millions to help. Immigration is not a priority compared to basic humanity and equality for those already here.
Democrats, love your neighbor. Love the stranger. Love this planet. We can, we should, we will. Love with all our heart. Speak true, persevere in the good. For all.
18
@ttrumbo. Wrong. You focus on the three most divisive wedge issues as the whole electoral ball game, exactly what the Trumpies want. Ever heard of inequality, tax cuts for the wealthy and profitable corporations, runaway militarism, freakin' healthcare? Healthcare is consistently first or second on rankings of importance to voters, yet Republican policies simultaneously defund government generally while attempting to systematically chip away at every modest reform in the ACA. Climate change? Cozying up to dictators? Unprecedented corruption at the highest levels. Alienating allies near and far? Trade wars?
The GOP has gotten where it is today on the coattails of hysteria over abortion, guns, and immigration. Now is not the time to use their playbook.
1
The Democratic party may not be captured by the left, but it still seems as though the hard left undermines the Democrats. How else could so many people in the broad political center have decided to vote for Trump in 2016? Hillary Clinton should have wiped him out, Russian social media hacking and the disfigured electoral college process notwithstanding. I'm pulling for the Democrats, but they should distance themselves from the rigid, intolerant, illiberal left who, like the rigid, intolerant, illiberal right, can talk to no one who doesn't think exactly like them.
11
Ms. Kamarck is correct that the recent leftward tilt of the Democratic party is a minor corrective shift compared to the complete capture by the "extreme center" of the party from 1992-2016, since Bill Clinton and his "triangulation" strategy became our religion.
His Crime Bill, Obamacare, the HRC 2016 campaign, and the NYT editorial board are all great examples of how effectively this corporate-funded centrist cabal has co-opted almost every aspect of the organized left (not to mention the very term "progressive").
What she fails to ask is whether that calculated move to the middle has been good for the party, its supposed ideals, or the people in it.
Let's analyze, shall we? Since the election of 1992:
* There have been 10 Gop-controlled Houses compared to 3 for the Dems.
* There have been 8 Gop-controlled Senates compared to 5 for the Dems.
* We have split Pres elections (unless you count it as a "win" when you win the popular vote and the other guy becomes President.)
* Dems currently occupy 16 out of 50 Governor's mansions and control 14 out of 50 state legislatures.
By the numbers, not too great
People can decide for themselves how we've done in recent decades on issues like Climate Change, Health Care, Immigration, or Race Relations.
People can decide for themselves how to evaluate the current state of our Nation.
But whatever the condition of our party or our country, make no mistake: centrist Democrats like the author are responsible and still in charge.
5
I hope that donkey doesn't relive himself on that group of people, but it would say a lot about the elderly establishment. Progressives are taking over, progressively. It will take time, as the voters realize that we want what they want, healthcare, proper humane immigration reform, women's equality, improved voting conditions, honesty and integrity of our representatives, stable safety net, end the tariffs and improve job training, quality education, fair taxation of the wealthy and corporations, etc., etc. Republicans don't want any of this. How can that not make you want to go out and vote Democrat all the way down the ballot.
12
So, what you're saying is that the hyperbolic changes foretold by the press were vastly overstated? It's almost like the hyperbolic negativity spewed at Hillary before the election.
It's almost like newspapers are built to sell newspapers.
7
All Leftists understand that 2018 was just a soft launch to get our feet wet. You need a president to take over a party, which is why our real plan kicks in in 2020. It's one thing for the establishment to put out bland talking points. It's quite another for them to defy the policies of President Bernie Sanders and vote against him, and then we'll vote them out.
4
The good thing is that you don’t have to be radically left to be in contact with common sense and good policy because the Republicans are so far right that they are Putin buddies, along with the President. The bad thing is that voters who aren’t Republican or Libertarian seem way too passive on all issues. They are unable to sustain any anger longer than two minutes — and that is the President’s power: tell a lie or change the subject several times a day and wear out the capacity of the opposition. His technique is now being used by those who hated his guts before his election: Hatch, Grahame, McConnell. Put a fork in it: this Democracy (or Republic if you will) is Cooked.
6
I've noticed that progressives are often quick to qualify their views of socialism with "Not Venezuelan socialism, Scandinavian socialism." I'm sure Venezuela wasn't picturing "Venezuelan socialism" either.
8
I feel as though this analysis is as much wishful thinking as any other numbers getting hurled around these days. Is their a chasm in the Democratic party? No. Everyone is united in minority opposition. You won't see the true fissures until Democrats regain power. I don't expect to see anything on the same level as the Republican split. However, the gap between establishment and progressive will grow when political conditions are more favorable for Democrats. This fact brings up two points.
First, there's a gap within a gap. Lumping democratic socialists into the same bucket as progressives brushes over some of the more inconvenient divisions within the Democratic party.
Second, attributing a bid for Medicare buy-in as evidence of Democratic continuity is a misrepresentation. The bid failed under combined Democratic majorities. Moreover, the signature establishment health care legislation refused to embrace a public option. I don't recall any Republicans voting for Obamacare. Who exactly refused the public option then?
When in power, establishment Democrats have repeatedly failed to embrace popular left-leaning legislation. As a result, establishment republicans are consistently a party majority while remaining a political minority. Winning primaries is not a sign of general popularity or viability. Frank Seddio should make this lesson abundantly clear. The Democratic primary system does more to alienate otherwise sympathetic voters than anything else.
11
@Andy
The biggest block of potential voters in the 2016 election (100 MILLION) did NOT vote. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton had the WORST approval ratings of any presidential candidates in recent history, yet, Hillary Clinton could not even defeat the worst of them all and yet, many establishment democrats STILL blamed Bernie Sanders. They just didn't get it and many still don't. The reality is, for most voters, neither candidate was an option and they were no longer willing to accept "the lesser of two evils".
Since the days of Bill Clinton whom alienated minority
and younger voters, started collecting corporate dollars and moving the party further to the right , it essentially has been downhill from there.
Progressives are the "last gasp" of the party trying to offer an alternative to Republicans, yet, many, including this author, while continually looking to an outdated past for solutions, still just don't seem to understand what is going on in their own country.
5
@Deus and neither does anyone who thinks dems and the gop are the same.
It unfortunately seems that the establishment of the Democratic Party hasn't read the memo that they are somewhat culpable in creating the Trump presidency; after all, it chose to loose with Hillary Clinton than win with Bernie Sanders two years ago. At some juncture, Democrats must give voters reasons to vote for them, rather than merely cast a ballot against Trump. Proclaiming that they are the party of the status-quo, whether through word or action, will only keep many Democrat and independent voters away next month and in 2020.
21
@Arcticwolf
I watched pretty carefully, and I never saw ONE established political observer on either side say that Bernie as the opposite to Trump ever had a chance of inning. All we had is rah-rah from people who'd never been heard of before.
Bernie would have ended up like Walter Mondale.
8
@L'osservatore
You come across as an apologist for Hillary Clinton, which if so, is too bad. If you can't discern that Trump's populism largely signifies a reaction against the status-quo which Hillary represented, you're not only blind, but you can't smell the coffee, either.
@Arcticwolf This tired trope that Bernie would have won has no basis in reality. The Democrats did not push Hillary on us; she won her primaries fair and square, just as she lost them to Barack Obama in 2008. There is no memo. Stop blaming the Trump presidency on her. There are hundred of reasons we are suffering him today; she is not one of them. And I back that up with almost 3 million more votes.
2
These findings by Brookings are not good news for Republicans who hope to hold on to the House – the Senate appears to be quite safe for them, and they’ll likely pick up Republican seats. But the more moderate the candidates the more competitive they’re likely to be, and the more likely that the usual rule will hold that the party in power will be punished in the midterms, at least in House elections.
However, this election may look more like a presidential contest, given the energized state of BOTH sides and the increased registration. Republicans’ efforts to leverage the recent emotion over the Kavanaugh confirmation could have more effect than “Medicare for all” on the left.
If that turns out to be the case, the polls that appear to favor Democrats could be as flawed as they were in 2016.
4
@Richard Luettgen
You should agree with cheddarcheese. If not then your just a simple minded monster.
cheddarcheese
Oregon18m ago
I want our government to:
Reverse climate change
Provide universal healthcare
Take care of the elderly and disabled
Adequately fund education
Use data vs. religion or anecdotes to create policy
Tax wealthy people a higher, not lower percentage
Support entrepreneurs and innovation, not corporations
Fund scientific research
Create a rational immigration strategy
Reform criminal justice to be rehabilitative vs. punitive only
Reduce poverty and food insecurity
Safeguard our finances from risky investors
Engage the world diplomatically vs. violently
Fund a 21st-century military, not 20th-century weapons
Treat minorities, LGBTQ and women equally
(there are probably more)
5
@wanderer
I actually agree with a lot of it. You figure out which items I DISagree with.
I want our government to:
Reverse climate change
Provide universal healthcare
Take care of the elderly and disabled
Adequately fund education
Use data vs. religion or anecdotes to create policy
Tax wealthy people a higher, not lower percentage
Support entrepreneurs and innovation, not corporations
Fund scientific research
Create a rational immigration strategy
Reform criminal justice to be rehabilitative vs. punitive only
Reduce poverty and food insecurity
Safeguard our finances from risky investors
Engage the world diplomatically vs. violently
Fund a 21st-century military, not 20th-century weapons
Treat minorities, LGBTQ and women equally
(there are probably more)
These priorities make me a left-leaning progressive (social democrat). I guess I thought I was just being reasonable.
From my discussions with friends and relatives who are Republicans and from the policies the GOP passes, they disagree with every one of my priorities.
The Republicans are the radical ones enacting laws and policies that hurt people, business, education, the military, and our freedoms.
I'm constantly wondering why the GOP has become the party of destructive policies. They are not mean or destructive people as I know them individually, but they support terrible policies and people.
Maybe Brookings should not use policies as an indicator of political preference. Maybe it's about measuring emotional/tribal/religious trigger issues while actual policies are only secondary.
57
@cheddarcheese Not only do they disagree, they disagree angrily. I don't get it either.
4
@cheddarcheese
I agree with most of your list. One thing:
"Support entrepreneurs and innovation, not corporations". Alternatively:
Support entrepreneurs and innovation.
Support workers and corporations fairly and equally.
It’s wonderful to have morning coffee along with the thoughts of a Bryn Mawr classmate. Thank you Elaine!
(from Katha Levine Dalton ‘72)
3
When Karmarck talked about the extreme left, who was she talking about? Antifa? Bernie Sanders supporters? The Indivisible Movement? The #MeToo Movement? The people who embrace the term democratic socialists? This lack of definition seemed to marginalize the new energy in the Democratic party. What was her point? Was it that Republican exaggerated the supposed threat posed by these new radicals? Or, maybe, that Democrats exaggerated when they said this is the most important election of our lifetime?
In the NY 21 House race, I worked hard to help bring a new Democratic voice into an area where Republicans held sway for decades. Being born and raised in the NY North Country, I have never seen the kind of Democratic energy on display during this election. I came of age during the Vietnam War, where protests were common. This new energy appeared deeper and more likely to last than those movements. My belief was based on the observation that the leaders of this movement were mostly women, and the leaders of the Vietnam War movement were mostly men. So far, this belief has borne out.
In general, women are better at taking the longer view than men. Yes, Karmarck was only talking about the outcome of a poll. In an age where hyperbole is the norm, polls measure our fantasies, not our realities. This new energy appears stronger and deeper than any in my almost seven decades. No poll can measure that kind of change until it becomes obvious.
15
You state "The two women are favored to win in November, and in Congress, their votes are not likely to differ significantly from the votes of the members they replace, so they will not change the distribution of votes in the House Democratic Caucus." As important as is their vote is their voice. My impression of these two women is that they will be vocal and perhaps supply much needed new leadership rather than just voting silently in lock step. The old guard promoted candidates that they thought could win, hence they pushed Hillary upon us and we ll know how that turned out. As a progressive I am not interested in "taking over the party" but in influencing its platform, its leaders and it voice. The Dems have grown stale and impotent so it's time to ruffle a few establishment feathers but that does not mean a coup.
30
The analysis re Medicare for All is bizarre. To say that it is "not as divisive an issue as some would make it out to be" because the Democratic party has long called for universal coverage is disingenuous in the extreme. Two years ago, Sanders was pilloried during the primary by establishment Democrats for advocating Medicare for All. Now most of those establishment Democrats have endorsed it, as have many, many Democratic candidates in swing districts.
This is a massive shift that goes to the heart of the resurgence of the progressive wing of the party, which is driven in large part by the recognition that progressives, not DC consultants, actually know how to win. Medicare for All is not only good policy; it is also wildly popular and extremely easy to message. The progressive wing of the party is no longer willing to defer to the geniuses who have run the Democrats straight into the ground and delivered total Republican control of the federal and most state governments despite the increasing radicalism of the Republicans and unpopularity of their policies (and 2016 presidential nominee).
The centrism-for-its-own-sake establishment needs to recognize its abject failure and get out of the way. We'll take it from here, thanks.
48
@R You seem to forget that Hillary advocated for Universal Health Care in — wait for it — 1993. Long before Bernie Sanders did, (And I might add she wasn't even an elected official; he was.)
You may also have forgotten that she was pilloried mercilessly by the Republicans and the effort failed, stalling it for many election cycles and making Democrats gun shy. But the idea has been kicking around for decades, as far back as FDR.
9
@R Medicare for all is quite popular, until we start to specify the level of taxation required to fund it adequately. This is one reason no state, not even California, has implemented it.
I believe a better route to our shared goals is Obamacare-with-a-public-option.
At any rate, I believe we'll be voting for the same candidates this fall, and in 2020. I only ask that you not dismiss moderates; a Democratic party that isn't in inclusive center-left coalition is one that will lose a lot.
3
@R I think the Republican/Trump attack and semi-decimation of ObamaCare has moved some Democrats to the left, seeing that any mixed policy will just be slowly picked off by the Republicans. In just a couple of years, Medicare for all is no longer seen as that radical.
1
In New Mexico, one reason I see a lack of progrssive support, as a lifelong Democrat (I'm 69), is that the progressive candidates are strongly supported by the 18-35 group, while the "establishment" Democrats like our new mayor Tim Keller in Albuquerque, are supported by we old guys. Which group votes most reliably? In 2014 only 6% of the 18-35 year old Democrats voted, while 35% of us old guys did (still putrid). So, while the young like the in your face progressiveness within the party (so do I), they just don't go to the polls. Better to get out on the street and yell and carry signs is the pattern. The former wins, the latter doesn't work in 21st century tribal America.
18
Maybe my math - or understanding - is a bit off, but, if "35% of total establishment candidates" and "27%" of progressives won their primaries, what happened to the remaining 38%?
1
Alan: my thought when I read those numbers was - that they lost to Republicans? Too simple?
These are primary results, so usually Republicans vs. Republicans or Democrats vs. Democrats. I think in some states they have a tier system where only the most voted for candidates across both parties can appear on the ballot. Maybe they are also not counting the states where you do not have to be registered to a party to vote in that party's primary.
We all know that the DCCC claims to focus on "those who can win". It's not their intention that's in question, it's their success rate and methods that are. Most people have this _weird_ idea that people who live in a district know best what kind of candidate has the best chance to win. I know, I should be burned at the stake for even suggesting that.
I'd be interested in the following:
- a comparison of the proportion of DCCC-endorsed candidates who won primaries this year compare to those who've won in previous elections
- the proportion of DCCC-endorsed candidates who won the general election in previous years (which will no doubt not be such a sunny figure)
- a comparison on Nov. 7th of the proportion of progressive candidates who won with the proportion of DCCC candidates who won - the acid test, if you will, where opinion confronts reality.
11
While Ms. Kamarck may be right about the Democratic Party, we should stop talking about "the extreme left." There is no meaningful extreme left. Whether Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez call themselves socialists, they are essentially New Deal Democrats. The extreme left of the 1930s, who rejected FDR as a closet capitalist, is gone. No one is calling for the nationalization of the means of production, just reigning in vulture capitalism that has left wages stagnate while profits soar.
The so-called far left is essentially Scandinavian social democracy, where a market system remains, but needs to be responsive to human needs.
108
@Peter Wolf
Read the DSA website Peter. Yes, they are calling for nationalization of the means of production.
3
@Driven Where? They call for worker cooperatives and some publicly owned enterprises but they specifically state "Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible."
This op-ed assumes that the “Democratic Party” is a constant. From that fallaciously fixed point, progressives are indeed left. But as you indicate, the progressives are more advocating a return to the “New Deal” and a focus on “human needs” rather than feeding corporate greed. So, perhaps, a more apt description of the two groups would be the current “right wing Democratic Party” versus the movement to return to fundamental New Deal democracy.
1
This is probably a good thing. What we need now, first and foremost, is to get back governing power. The US is a big, diverse, ungainly country that turns slowly. We are not able — nor designed — to make quick and agile shifts.
But slowly we do turn. So long as we go out and vote.
27