I'm 70, white male and I want honesty, integrity and vision. I want someone who knows how to behave like a mature adult who doesn't run others into the ground to satisfy his or her own out sized ego. May we be so lucky as to have a candidate that is a clone of Barack Obama whether that person is young or old, any race, any religion, any gender.
3
You people who read and comment have gained an education and continue to learn. Most eligible voters know very little about politics, history, science, etc., and as the election of 2016 showed, can be duped at any time. The republicans are looking for vote fodder to use against the dems. in future television sound bytes to again fool the ignorant mass. "So and so voted to help terrorists, etc." I hope young and new voters have learned to read from more than a cell phone.
2
The "progressives" are working overtime to get Trump re-elected. Here comes a 7 - 2 Supreme Court! Enjoy your wrecking-ball mission, AOC!
4
March 6, 2019
Okay politicians of America get - for the love of work..... and keep in mind:
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies."
Groucho Marx
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
Plato
3
I hate to sound like the would-be dictator, carnival barker and conman in the White House, but as abundantly documented here, we have slanted inaccurate journalism to blame. Ms. "it girl" without a C.V. (well, ex-bartender) has finally gotten her district office up and running having torn herself away from Twitter no doubt. The media continues its adoration of someone with no legislative accomplishments, but why?
Meanwhile Reps. Spanberger and Sherrill have real and substantial life experiences and/or spouses and kids and gravitas. Yet the media treats them as nobodies because everything is youth,and internet "fame". This is nonsensical pandering to surface fluff and social media over depth of experience. It is also terrible and lazy journalism.
It is so easy for activists in cobalt blue one party districts to be radical chic, and promise the moon and stars no matter the cost. But our majority is built in suburban moderate districts represented by Republicans until last this new Congress. These are hard facts for the hard left and if my long life experience tells me anything it is the left doesn't care if we lose. Yes, incredible but true.
For them activism is the secular religion and being a devout warrior beats winning elections. I hope I'm wrong for the sake of our nation and the rule of law.
"Let's rather than substance.
4
Anyone else tired of the term "weaponized"?
1
AOC and her band of math-challenged democratic socialists will cost us 2020, just like she cost my hometown tens of billions in Amazon money.
5
Why Democrats lose.
1
It is not radical or leftist to want health care for all, or to support the fight against global warming. These efforts are merely attempts at survival. And playing the moderate will not help us to survive, maybe politically, but not in real time. People will pick up the rhythm of life eventually and not vote to avoid losing to a lunatic like Donald Trump, but vote for survival. He's going down regardless, either by impeachment or indictment in the Southern District of NY or by the public shaming in the Congressional hearings.
1
The best thing for our polarized politics is Ranked Choice Voting. RCV fosters alternative views and rewards consensus.
4
Worth driving this home: This is once again a result of Republican gerrymandering.
Had the Democrats pick up house seats reflecting their vote share you'd expect a 40 seat majority, meaning that defectors wouldn't matter nearly as much.
instead the Democrats have the same majority winning by 9% as the Republicans did losing by 2%.
3
@Paronis
You ought to see the carnival barker the electoral college saddled us with,.. after he lost the election by 3,000,000 ballots.
A line of 3,000,000 people stretches for well over a thousand miles.
Government Of The People???
2
It's true- on all media, including liberal ones, we are getting a picture that the left has taken over the Democratic party. Democratic moderates are not getting their message across. This is a problem. In the 21st century, a successful political party needs to have a consistent, credible message. Republicans have had one for 40 years.
I predict that the more progressive members may leave the Democratic party at some point in the future. I think this will probably be a good thing, if it means that there will be a moderate and a progressive option, each with their own, clear message. Just please, let's wait until after the 2020 election.
3
Not of course, neither are Republicans. We are so divided that Putin must be very happy.
The conflicted Democratic Party could turn down the political volume, and bin words from its divided agenda that are distracting, disruptive, defeating.
The Democratic House Majority, headed by Speaker Pelosi and Senator Schumer, to hold a National Democratic Forum, closed to the Press, where each and every Congress representative with a viable solution to reconcile their differences brings something to the table.
Less emphasis on the president, and more focus on removing the fog from the eyes of the Democrats with a view to the future of our Nation.
This might call for a true Team Spirit, and a challenge for those who wish to take up the gauntlet in their endeavors to set our Country back on its feet.
2
Clearly, Trump's radical right-wing constituency, and the demise of "moderate" Republican influence was bound to bring about a radical Democratic Party response. Those looking for a "moderate" compromise in both parties are either unaware, or unwilling to admit, that the country is in the midst of a Manichean political struggle that will continue even if Trump is defeated in 2020.
1
I come down on the side of pragmatism. I simply want to keep the Dem majority in the House and to elect a Dem president. The many Senate Dems running for president seem to be willing to leave that house to the Repubs. I live in an Atlanta suburb. In 2017, I canvassed and called and texted for Dem Jon Ossoff (he lost) and, in 2018, did the same for Dems Lucy McBath (she flipped a House seat) and candidate for governor Stacey Abrams who lost thanks to some shiftiness by the state sec-of-state (now the governor--hmm). There was a huge increase in voter turnout, much of it thanks to general fear and loathing of Trump, but also thanks to the efforts of 1000s working to get-out-the-vote. I am deeply concerned over environmental changes done by this administration. I am appalled by backsliding in social justice and human rights. I have used the medical systems in Europe for 3 minor/moderate situations and know that a transition to a similar system would be best for our country. I am embarrassed by our lost standing in the world. I am confused by what acceptance of Trump's venal and immoral behavior says about the character of some of my friends here in the South. BUT we won't win now if Dems provoke fear, justified or not, by trying to move too quickly toward ideas that critics are painting as radical and destructive. Their propaganda machine is cranking out lies while we squabble over the how-and-when.
n b@Meg Was Bill Clinton's behavior pure as the driven snow? In earlier decades, were the Kennedys choir boys? Are human beings all saints?
As always Mr. Edsall, thank you for your thoughtful analysis, I always look forward to them. Some people would call me a yellow dog Democrat because since 1972 I have only split my national vote once, and that was to vote for Jack Danforth for senator from Missouri because the other guy was a crook. I was surprised to learn from the graphics that I belong to a larger majority of straight ticket voters than I expected. Only there's never been a dip in my straight ticket voting. According to the graphs, split tickets picked up starting in the '60s with the Kennedy-Johnson years and the Vietnam debacle and started falling during the Bush-Clinton-Bush years and the Iraq debacle. My voting pattern didn't change over that time span, so why are there more people who vote straight some years and split other years? Is it because a lot of people have fungible values? If so, is it because they are being manipulated by our polarized media? Or is this a generational change thing? Or a reflection of the changing demographics of the American electorate? Beats me but it seems important.
This is a problem for both parties when they try to be "big tent" parties and appeal to everyone. Maybe it is time to split both parties into smaller parties, so those who want far right representatives and senators, those who want far left representatives and senator, those who want moderate democrats and those who want moderate republicans will find homes in parties that better represent them.
The other problem is that the GOP has moved so far to the right that it makes even moderate democrats look like radical lefties, when in reality they are not. Our political system has gotten so skewed out of whack by the GOP's far right move.
I haven't voted for a GOP candidate since Bill Weld ran for governor of Massachusetts and Silvio Conte was in office. Those kinds of Republicans don't exist anymore except for a small handful in the Northeast at the state and local level. The Bill Welds and Silvio Contes are no longer welcome in the GOP because it has moved so far to the right. The Democratic Party could face the same problem as the country becomes ever more polarized.
I'm not for all of AOC's ideas, but I do agree with some of them. And if any GOPers want to work on reducing the cost of prescription drugs, I'm with them. The problem now is that the radical right won't agree with anything Pelosi or any other Democrat proposes out of spite, even if the ideas and proposals originated with the Heritage Foundation. Time to split the country.
2
If the Democratic party goes far left in 2020 they likely will lose both the Presidency & the House.
The AOC's of the world are the mirror image of the Trumpets.
If the AOC's drop the most radical proposals they can win but they have to make room for the moderates in the party.
Booting Trump is more important than idealogical purity.
8
The Dem have long shown that they are the large tent the inclusive party. So of course they will have differing ideas and plans. But also at the end of the day it must also be remembered that it is no longer like the old days the kid gloves must come off. So what has not worked before must take a different tack. There must be focus and common goal at the finish line.
Let me get this straight: Nancy Pelosi is angry because moderate Democrats took a vote to help preserve the Democratic House majority?
And if we are for gun control and background checks, why shouldn't Democrats take votes that reflect some tradeoffs? And avoid taking votes that let Republicans paint them as prioritizing undocumented immigrants over Americans?
I understand that a House-passed gun control bill will never pass the Republican-controlled Senate. But first, then why get our panties all in a bunch if a less-than-perfect amendment goes into a doomed bill? And second, this is the kind of thing THAT COULD ACTUALLY RESULT IN SOME LEGISLATION.
Also, if allowing the minority party to offer MTRs never helps Democrats, and often screws Democrats, then Pelosi should get rid of it. Change the House rules. Republicans will squawk, but it's insider baseball that nobody will care about after a couple of weeks.
19
@NFC A reasonable gun control bill could pass and actually be signed, totally progressive bill has no chance. There is no way that actual private sales will ever have checks, those that are really dealers need to be dealt with. And forget the idiotic idea that things that look like military weapons are actually military weapons.
The R's have done a brilliant job of how issues and ideas are framed - "pro-life" (they forget to say, "once out of the womb, good luck - you're on your own, we don't care if you go to war and get killed or injured); Clear skies, healthy forests (GW Bush - Frank Luntz). Euphemisms for "we're going to pour all the carbon from fossil fuels we want but call it "clean"); tax "reform"? Hello!
The R's will frame and lie until they die - no scruples, no love for life, no courage to speak the truth - it's all about the $ for their puppet masters - those who bankroll them.
The Dems do not do framing well nor do they express vision or engage & educate well. The Green New Deal, Medicare for All, etc. These are positive and visionary and if the Dems and advisors would campaign and educate the "why, what and how", many more people would see huge benefits while demonstrating the Repub bull.
Jay Inslee is the closest I've seen. Listen carefully as he talks about the huge opportunities for jobs, the economy, the well being of all life and the natural world when we decide to INVEST in the low carbon, clean energy economy and future. We can "restore" the climate to 300ppm of CO2, we can INVEST in a positive future for my coming grandchild. This is about INVESTING, not SPENDING. The spending comes, big time, if we do not INEST in the real future that is truly there for all. If you listen to the "R" lies and distortions, we're dead. Look for the truth - it's there. We can do this.
Republicans are republicans and so are moderate democrats. The moderates in the DFL are what neuter their policy. They have nothing different to say on many issues except exactly what the GOP is saying on that issue. We would be better off if the moderates would join the GOP and go about subjugating the people in a more honest and forthright manner. It is an insult to ones intelligence to have to pretend that centrists and moderates have the peoples interest in mind. They, like republicans, like money and power and rubbing elbow with wealthy oligarchs who make them feel important, but they will never really care about the common people.
I understand that many want the policies of the DFL, but the platform is hindered by the fake democrats who always side with the wealthy and corporations. They will always undercut the progressive policy. It's time to end this GOP infiltration of the left.
“The motion — passed with the support of the 26 Democratic defectors who infuriated Pelosi — amended the legislation to require notification of Immigration and Customs Enforcement when an undocumented immigrant fails a background check.”
Hooray for the 26!
This is called bi-partisan cooperation to enact background checks however insufficient. Shame on the Dems who held out for political gain at the expense of common sense. What surprises me is that the GOP even introduced it.
I also believe all Americans should submit DNA to be housed in a searchable database. And lastly, all guns should be banned.
Introduce a loaded revolver into a group of primates and you’ll see six of them dead before sundown.
3
Don't confuse policies with values. We may be a raucous group, with apparently conflicting plans and objectives, but we share a set of values that encompass so many people there is bound to be disagreement. Deal with it.
I'm reminded of an article from Forbes: "An Unusual But Valuable Business Skill: Herding Cats" (https://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2013/02/23/an-unusual-but-valuable-business-skill-herding-cats/#2ef8108d5106). Unlike the herd-mentality of the GOP, the Democratic party cannot afford to silence dissent. It must be kept in the open so that anyone and everyone can see how their preferences fare in the the 'open market' of public policy. Here's an idea: actually read the lyrics of "We can work it out".
Ok, I'm an old guy so I'll leave with one more thing to consider: “You either have to be part of the solution, or you're going to be part of the problem.” - Eldridge Cleaver.
1
Reviewing the posts, a lot of stock left vs. centrist spewage in another useless game of either/or. And all the while, we can hear the ching of tapping crystal as Flunky and his cohorts toast the intended chaos.
Take a deep breath, everbody....unless of course your interested in participating in Flunky's re-election. Maybe, just maybe---a philosophical/pragmatic middle way between centrism and hard left???
2
After the 2016, the DNC served up a tepid porridge called "A Better Deal" as a solace, perhaps, for the loss. Please, no more tepid porridge. What was the matter with the New Deal such that a New New Deal for these times can't be on the menu?
1
It is always the chaos of too much of one or the other and swinging back and forth. As an example, we idiotically invaded Iraq. Then Obama was voted in to get us out. It was idiotic to leave after we'd spent so much time and effort to take over Iraq. And the result was Isis and millions of people displaced, hundreds of thousands of deaths and widespread misery. We have a crisis at our border, and we either want to build a wall and keep everyone out, or open the border and let everyone in. Neither will work, of course. We have no real leader, we are just part of the chaos. Only a real leader can bring logic to the conversation.
Was Hilary really a "...centrist..."? I mean, she looked like one next to Bernie, but who wouldn't?
Wasn't the Leftist complaint about her that she was too "...establishment..." and too "...tied to Wall Street..."? Those are not necessarily hallmarks of "...centrism...".
We went Left in 72 and stayed Left until 92. We lost 4 out of 5.
Just sayin'.
1
The problem? Today's center is far right of Dwight Eisenhower. The center has not held.
Pelosi should sit AOC and all the other newly elected progressives down and explain one key fact, which Bernie Sanders got right: without campaign finance reform, all their progressive dreams are dead in the water. Healthcare for all has been and will be opposed by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Green initiatives have been and will be opposed by big oil. Et cetera. So the most useful thing AOC and other newbies can do is propose and advocate for campaign finance reform and reigning in lobbying. They have not been tainted by big money yet, unlike Pelosi and other long-serving members of Congress, so they can be the standard bearers. They need to have it pounded into their idealistic heads that unless the influence of big money can be stopped, the oligarchs win and the voters lose, and their progressive agenda goes nowhere.
4
These centrists need to look at what happened in 2010. The centrists took a "shellacqng."
The centrist "Blue Dog" Democrats refused to back single player healthcare (or even a public option) or other progressive legislation.
Obama governed from the center, offering s Republican Healthcare Plan, and bailing out global banks.
The result of the Democratic Party hiding in the center?
All of the Blue Dog Democrats lost after their first two years in office, because they refused to help the working people of this country.
All of you centrists need to read and re-read yesterday's editorial explaining that progressive policies enjoy "supermajority" support. If you think that pushing establishment "center" policies that are opposed by large majorities of Americans are going to save your seat, you are completely misreading why you were elected instead of a Republican, and what your constituents want you to do.
1
Wow, so in other words the radical left wing of the party is so intent on blindly protecting illegal immigrants at any cost they will betray one of their foundational principles, that is sensible gun control. How do they justify that in any way? if Pelosi is such a grand master why cant she control this - seems the moderate Dems are 100% right to take this little win in gun control, why would anyone want anyone, illegal immigrant or not, to have less regulated access to guns? Hope the Dems are enjoying their majority, they look like Keystone Cops and it may not last long.
7
At this point, AOC could introduce a clothing line and endorse shoes and soft drinks.
@Ed AOC is too busy backpedaling on her opposition of Amazon in NYC to be a hypocrite on capitalism right now. Maybe at a later date she can exploit her position to make money.
2
My wife of many years always wondered why whenever myself and my brothers are in close proximity to each other we fight. I told her yes we do fight amongst ourselves but let no one think we were not one. Come after one of my brothers and you will have to fight us all. I say let Left and Center of my party have a knock down brawl and when the smoke clears have a message that resonates with all factions of the party. We have more in common than we know. Lets quit the my way or the highway attitude and craft a message that more than half of the country can believe in. As long as we stay divided we will give 45 another chance to put us through four more years of insanity. Time to swing for the fences with a message that can unite more of us. The only way we will lose in 2020 is if we keep this crabs in a barrel act up.
1
I was rather amused by the comment about how shocked, SHOCKED people are that the boring moderate Democratic candidates who won most of the formerly Republican seats in the House aren't getting as much attention from the media as the more interesting far left members.
For crying out loud, compare how much focus the media placed on that man than on any other Republican candidate during the election. With the blurring of lines between news and opinion, particularly in TV, it's time to insist that all candidates receive equal time in news coverage.
I don't want to spend one minute watching an empty hangar full of glassy-eyed, MAGA hat-wearing fans filling 80% of the screen, while the pundits talk about what he might say and an image (with no sound) of one of his opponents takes up the lower left 20% of the screen. The media was complicit in electing that man, with its unceasing coverage of his every move and fawning transmission of his every lie.
2
@JM: All publicity IS good publicity in a nation where everything is measured in publicity.
1
True to form, Mr. Edsall tells us the great risks to the Democratic Party by moving to the left. Why not raise the real ghost, Mr. Edsall: the McGovern campaign of 1972?
But notice something else here, the real question of our time: what age do we live in, do we live in ordinary or extraordinary times? If the former, then Edsall has some valid points. If its the late 1850's, say the 1859 of John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry, or 1929-1932, then he is way off base and the dynamic force behind the Green New Deal has a completely different diagnosis: we are in dramatic times, ecologically and economically, surely for the later not for the contented, vastly contented Clinton wing of the party, but for a good part of the middle and working class, some so demoralized and angry at snobby Ivy League Democrats like the Clintons that they will vote their rage for a near demagogic authoritarian figure. And this is at the peak of the business cycle; what happens when the cycle turns down?
My sense is that we are in extraordinary times, like the 1850's and 1932...and the center can no longer motivate nor supply the bold solutions that the Green New Deal has broached, put on the table.
@William Neil: McGovern piloted 35 missions over occupied Europe in B-24s without getting shot down. The US chose Nixon to win the Vietnam War with B-52s.
2
@William Neil:"the McGovern campaign of 1972?"
Yeah, I recall that well in Michigan.
During the Democratic Primary the Detroit Public Schools were in the process of being forced to implement a forced busing plan.
In 1972 a desegregation order to the Detroit Public Schools, forced busing was implemented in Detroit, Judge Roth (JFK appointee, you know, "no price to great to pay"...), who ruled on the case wrote in part:
“Transportation of kindergarten children for upwards of 45 minutes, one way, does not appear unreasonable, harmful, or unsafe in any way. ...kindergarten children should be included in the final plan of desegregation.”
This was a WEAPONIZED JUDICIARY aimed at working class folks by liberals who for the most part had no skin in the game.
Fortunately the cross-district scheme was reversed by the SCOTUS.
Unfortunately the plan mandated that each public school in Detroit reflect the overall student population. This was when the Detroit Public Schools were about 27% white.
This was a hot topic in the Democratic presidential primary. George Wallace won the state as he did Maryland. During the campaign McGovern stated he favored the busing plan.
It's well known that NYC Public Schools are some of the most racially segregated in the country. No problem for the NYT or NYC residents, let's hammer on the folks in flyover country.
Just wonder how bad it will get for working class folks when the progressives get wound up and going - collateral damage galore.
3
The expectation for rigid party loyalty is not a good thing. Speaker Pelosi should be working to unwind this trend, rather than reinforcing it. In the scheme of things it may be relatively benign, but it is one of things that causes public disdain. The business of the house should be more visible to the public in open debate and members should be free to vote their conscience. In the long run it will be good for the democrats, the Congress,and the country.
31
"The resurgent far left of the party has received media attention out of proportion to its share of the party." That quote from Frances Lee is the epitome of the problem that Conservative Democrats face.
After all, the media were complicit in the election of Donald Trump! The media sold far more news stories covering the very entertaining and unique clown show that was Trump. They followed Trump's MO of creating conflict and disagreement to sell to the average American voter.
Now the media again is sowing the same seeds of discontent and controversy in describing a "split" in the Dems that is supposedly going to drag the party down. And it sells papers and sponsors controversy.
The media is going down the same path in creating an fictitious far left Democratic party that moderates won't vote for.
In doing just that the liberal media are contributing to exactly what they pretend to abhor, reelecting Donald Trump.
3
She owes nada to the moderates. Each race consists of a complex mix of local issues, needs, and a great variety of constituents. Successful candidates know the nuanced nature of their specific locales. Pelosi's challenge is how to stretch her rhetorical practice and analytical toolbox to understand and empower newly elected representatives, who clearly bring sorely needed skills and values to the House. If she is to succeed, she must temper the old guard's outrage at the presence of the new. The old guard can either step up, listen, learn and respect the new voices, or get voted out next term. Pelosi has to see that we are all done with the same old ideologues shutting down and admonishing those who bring change. Her deal with the new folks includes a will to change and advance the party's practice.
17
@WIS Gal -- right now there are how many progressive representatives?
6
@WIS Gal
Just one little problem with bringing change, and that's money. All the idealistic new reps need to grasp that in order for any change to happen, they need to figure out a plan detailed enough for the CBO to put numbers to it, and they have to achieve campaign finance reform. As long as corporations and PACs can throw unlimited money at lobbyists and campaign funds, the change they want is dead on arrival. Let them put their idealism to use solving that problem first. The old guard understands that problem, which is why they are not so quick to jump on the bandwagon.
5
@Nikki -- WSI Gal is from Colorado Springs ... home of the Air Force Academy and famous for right-wing religiosity. Her district is Republican and represented by Dough Lamborn.
In January 2012, Lamborn announced he would not attend the President's State of the Union address. According to his spokeswoman Catherine Mortenson, "Congressman Lamborn is doing this to send a clear message that he does not support the policies of Barack Obama, that they have hurt our country", and believed Obama was “in full campaign mode and will use the address as an opportunity to bash his political opponents."
In 2016 the National Journal named Lamborn the most conservative member of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Now on the one hand I can understand why a progressive living in such a district might be frustrated, but I would think it should be obvious that threatening to primary Democrats, particularly those in less-than-wildly-liberal districts ... is a really stupid idea?
Secondarily perhaps her goals for regime change could start at home? The 5th-district vote in 2018 was 57% for Lamborn, 39% for Stephany Spalding, the Democrat.
Those are sure not great numbers for Democrats, but not hopeless. Dr. Spalding is an interesting and usual candidate: black female professor and Evangelical, making a first foray into politics. 39% is pretty good considering.
3
The end of slavery, medicare, social security, woman's right to vote, civil rights, equal pay, anti-discrimination, even the Affordable Care Act, were all characterised as 'radical' but became widely popular.
The GOP just gave a trillion dollars to millionaires and billionaires without so much as a single hearing. Did the media characterise that as radical or extreme? No.
It's a sad indictment of the media and society in general that anything that benefits the poor or the middle class is characterised as 'radical' or 'socialist'. More appropriate descriptors would be 'humane' and 'progressive'.
5
Democrats may stand as much as 10 degrees apart from one another on most of the issues that confront our nation. On the other hand, and with the possible exception of Joe Manchin, we all stand 180 degrees apart from America's Great White Dope and his party of enablers. Which is to say that at this juncture any Democrat who would reject any of the party's presidential or congressional aspirants in favor of the other party's candidate should really be ashamed of themselves.
4
@stu freeman - Stu, I always value your wise advice. But what if the Republicans were wise enough to ditch President Trump and instead offer up a Mitt Romney? And what if the Democrats offered a candidate whose main campaign plank was, "Now is the time for the U.S. to embark on the patch to socialism, this will be so cool!" For at least one Democrat, me, that isn't a 10 degree difference, so much so that it might even lead me to consider voting for a Republican for the first time in my 48 years of voting.
But I should be spared that tough decision—I can't see a scenario in which the Republicans would be wise enough to dump President Trump. And I can't picture myself voting for him under any circumstances, so I'd be stuck with whoever the Democrats would offer. Except the 2020 election won't be decided by voters like me—just as in 2016 it will be decided by somewhat-independent "swing" voters. And this "Hey, let's do socialism" insanity has me really worried—it's about the only way I can see to hand Trump four more years, something our country can't survive.
1
Why does an undocumented immigrant who fails a background check apply for a gun? And even if (s)he even does not fail the background check, don't we have too many guns in this country? Suddenly the gun debate seems not matter. But it should! How can be proper background check done for someone who lived most of his life elsewhere? Why don't we prohibit gun sales to undocumented immigrants altogether?
3
@alecs: Guns specifically designed to kill people encourage just that. Failure to treat wanting something like that as a mental health issue is cognitive dissonance.
Contrary to Mr. Edsall's assertion, voting your district remains essential for Democrats. Here in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, Democrats hold all three congressional seats and two of them currently hold the highest approval rating offered by the National Rifle Association. Their reelection requires some level of approval from firearms owners and they intend to retain that.
However, Edsall should be congratulated for noting that the media strength of the social democrats is greater than their actual strength in Congress. For example, Alexandra Ocasio Cortes appears in the NYT more often than does any centrist Democrat except Nancy Pelosi and has been a media celebrity since her primary victory.
4
@Quiet Waiting: AOC's victory, over the next in line to be House Speaker incumbent representing her district, in a primary where all of 12% of eligible voters voted, signifies political apathy for the record books.
3
Donald Trump realizes that his best chance of not being removed from office is to have Republicans vote along party lines without thinking. Such partisanship destroys any chance that a vote to impeach in the House will be followed by a 2/3 one necessary to convict in the Senate.
In order to actually remove Trump from office, Democrats will have to convince moderate Republicans to vote against Trump.
But to quote from Thomas Edsall's article, Pelosi
"was outraged when ... 26 moderate Democrats supported a Republican motion ... explicitly designed to thwart progressive Democrats who adamantly oppose reporting undocumented immigrants to authorities."
First of all, illegal immigrants should be reported to authorities. Second, if there is to be any hope of negotiation on immigration Representatives have to be free to form their own opinions.
A rigid uniformity is the antithesis of the democratic process which should VALUE independence of thought.
Pelosi is signaling that only extremists who believe in open borders can qualify as true Democrats.
But this message gets out to the 17 million poor in Guatemala. And additional millions from El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and other countries in Central America.
Pelosi should be impeached because she doesn't understand arithmetic. America does not have the resources to provide for additional millions from Central America when it cannot provide medical care for America's own poor
Terrible as Trump is, Pelosi is even worse.
3
@Jake Wagner: Obviously both parties find their different ways to evade population issues.
Of course the Democrats have the harder road. They are the party of change and progress, which means discovering and implementing new directions, new policies, new solutions. If Pelosi or Edsall or anyone thinks that can be done without pretty strong, disagreements, then they are sorely lacking in an understanding of how the world works.
On the other hand, the Republicans have it easy. They just say no to change—end of story. But they end up being on the back end of change anyhow. They can’t avoid being dragged kicking and screaming into the future. Not fun being a Republican.
1
@Jagadeesan: Inventors fail many times for every success.
it is very telling, and very unfortunate, that Democrats have in Congress are feeling acrimony about the left-center split on a social issue such as the effect on undocumented immigrants of universal background checks for gun purchases.
Social issues are exactly what Americans will never agree one, while Tim Wu pointed out yesterday that 75% of Americans favor higher taxes on the "ultrawealthy." David Leonhardt has mentioned this too.
The only way for Democrats to win Senate seats or the 2020 presidential race is for Progressive Democrats to allow those in Conservative states to part company with them on some social issues, while maintaining unity on what most Americans want: progressive economic policy.
4
I find it interesting that progressive Democrats claim that that their political policies are center. They try to logically explain this by claiming that the New Deal was a center policy position. This couldn’t be farther from reality. FDR and the New Deal policies were radical left policies even when they were implemented. FDR threatened to stack the Supreme Court to push the policies through.
The toxicity of the left-center split for the Democrats is that the left gets Democrats identified with socialism to the discomfit of the center who have to run with this label hung around their necks. As long as the label itself is toxic, the left-center split will be toxic. The split would be just a difference of policy and opinion and understanding if the label were not so toxic.
So a solution for the left-center split is to remove its toxicity, which can be done by detoxifying the idea of socialism. Now, for Americans being socialist is like being non-white -- if you have any of it in you at all, that is what you are. Under this loose American definition of socialism, such popular programs as Social Security, Medicare, public education, and public highways (rather than toll roads) are socialist.
Pointing this out would detoxify the word for most people, and make the programs toxic for some. When these programs were first introduced, their socialistic quality was often dishonestly denied in order to get them adopted. So many people think that Social Security has saved their contributions somewhere and will return them after they reach a certain age; that is not how it works. This deception would have to be finally admitted and dealt with, and doing so would make political debate much more honest and simple.
Of course, a majority of us might decide that we want as little socialism as possible.
@sdavidc9: Sociopaths systematically bowdlerize the meanings of words like "social".
1
@sdavidc9: "Sociopath" is the antithesis of "Socialist". One is the cure, the other is the disease.
1
The Herculean effort that it took to get these seats flipped is severely underestimated by EVERYONE! Democrats are unified on most issues, they can negotiate the details. The "outrageous" ideas of the left can be enfolded into a unified Democratic voice improving the status quo. Free Public College can transition to low cost loans (1 to 3 percent) for US citizens. Medicare for All can be kick started with a public option offering or maybe even Medicare at age 55! We must keep reps like Mikey Sherrill and Tom Malinowski in the House because without them we are doomed. Every Democratic vote in Congress counts,so let's keep pushing left instead of just going backwards. Let's fight for worker rights and reproductive rights together. Let's fight Climate Change together. Let's insure Social Security and Medicare together. Let's improve Medicaid, let's improve mental health services. Let's get rid of the Trump tax scam, tax extreme wealth, up the estate tax and take back the Senate and the Presidency. The far left should be able to get plenty excited about all the issues moderate Dems are ready to fight for and all things Republicans oppose.
5
It is a serious mistake to describe what is happening in the United States as a battle between liberals and conservatives, or moderates and progressives. It is a struggle for the survival of our nation and our democracy. It is a battle between Trumpists and those who care sincerely about the future of our country.
Nearly half the US voting population supports the Republican Party. They have bought into Voo Doo "trickle-down" economics. They have been convinced that national healthcare in one form or another as practiced in every advanced nation is "Socialized Medicine".
It is going to be a struggle to drag this country out of the anti-Constitutional, anti-democracy abyss created by the Republican Party and their mascot Donald Trump. Every Democrats has a moral obligation to maintain party unity at all costs. No other consideration overcomes the need to save our nation from Trumpism.
2
We need more than two parties. Perhaps a Left, Center Left, Center Right, and Lunatic Right?
4
@chrismosca That sounds correct to me but it will never happen as no one is interested in diluting power.
2
Conflict is one thing.
Marxist lunacy is quite another.
Democrats are doomed.
2:50 pm Wed.
5
I'm sorry, but it's not absurd to report to ICE illegal immigrants who try and fail to buy a gun.
5
@Ilya Shlyakhter: Yes, ordinary citizens generally don't want to enforce immigration laws themselves, and they don't want to be criminalized themselves for not doing so. If illegal immigration is to be deterred, government itself has to create bottlenecks that require proof of citizenship or legal entry status.
3
@Ilya Shlyakhter It sounds legitimate to me. Of course I think employers of illegal immigrants should be fined for using illegal labor and for failure to report illegal immigrants.
1
What I learned in political science 101 is the way for a party to win elections is to book your fringe—they have nowhere else to go—and then appeal to undecideds in the center. Although something like this enabled President Trump’s razor-thin victory in 2016, the Republicans are NOT following this strategy, and instead are being driven by their nuts, with President Trump of course being chief nut.
What a wonderful opportunity for the Democrats to take a huge chunk from the center, sweep the 2020 elections, and restore sanity. But what an awful time to blow up this gift by deciding this is a good time for the U.S. to adopt socialism. Socialism! You gotta be kidding me! Besides being an absolutely awful idea, this is about the only thing I can think of that would guarantee the re-election of Trump and his minions and throw this country from the frying pan of insanity into the fire. The Republicans must be laughing their rear ends off.
3
AOC is leading Nancy Pelosi around Washington by the nose.
The Democrats should focus in on 2024.
2
The centrists are centrists because they think it’s good strategy, particularly if you don’t want to alarm big donors. But is it really “centrist” to duck solutions to problems?
Things like infrastructure, child & elder care, affordable housing, education aren’t exactly “leftist”, are they. Other things like health care, environmental protection, opioid addiction, impact some large industries, but opposition to fixing these problems isn’t “leftist” either; it’s about combatting greed.
Framing sensible approaches to solving huge recognized problems as “socialist”, “leftist” etc is a Republican slant on things, The Dems have to do better! Much better! So does the NYT.
2
@John ¥—¥ Brews The US spends more than any other nation on primary education so it’s not a money issue. I keep hearing Democrats talk about spending more on education but have seem to have no interest in reform that may actually work other than to eliminate standards of learning. The standards of learning were a response to an education system already failing so simply getting rid of this won’t fix American education.
3
@John
You're right, it's not a money issue. It's a parenting issue. Our education system would be more than sufficient (at least in the states that do fund it adequately; in the red states, not so much), if every child came to school respectful, ready to learn, having at least passable social skills, and knowing that if he or she did not do the assigned work or was rude to the teacher, there would be consequences at home. There is a limit to what the school can do when the parents will not or cannot do their job successfully.
1
We always hear loudly from the extremes of each party. There is clearly a 40-40-20 voting structure. 40 percent will support Trump regardless of the most damning evidence against him. 40 percent will support whoever the Democratic candidate is. The objective of Pelosi and Schumer is to orchestrate their party into producing an opponent to Trump who cannot be savaged as an anti-American socialist. Now that the ethnicity of the Democratic party has shifted further in gender and race, Team Pelosi and Schumer must collaborate to come up with a ticket that appeals to women and people of color. Given that, the obvious choice would be Kamala Harris but let's not forget. But Harris has already tipped her hand too far left. Her appeal would be as the running mate on a ticket in which the person at the top is more centrist leaning. Thus, Klobuchar/Harris, Biden/Harris, Brown/Harris (if the latter two enter the race) would earn broad appeal, prevent major rifts in the party, and provide the 20 percent moderate voters with a sensible choice over Trump, whose continued singular purpose is to ingratiate himself with his base.
1
The progressive Democrats in the House aren't leading the party way out to the left. After decades of corruption and rightward drift, progressives are actually leading the party back to the center and the values that used to define traditional Democrats.
2
@Joe This is a fallacy. Just because the party was far left at one point doesn’t make that the center. FDR was never considered a centrist.
2
Mark Twain (or Will Rodgers or both): "I'm not a member of an organized political party, I'm a Democrat".
1
They are a 'family', not a team. They don't need to all be the same, and if Nancy thinks otherwise, IMHO she is crazy.
10
Actually, it is important to check assumptions that the Green New Deal has only partisan appeal.
Check out this recent webinar for a different view (1 hour, but very engaging. Even listening to the first 10 minutes is very worthwhile).
https://soundcloud.com/user-203342903/green-new-deal-webinar-03052019-mixdown/s-DHt9c
The heart and soul of the Democratic party is and always will be the New Deal. That is a grassroots, dinner table, drive the fear out program that resonates in every red state and district. But that core message has nothing to do with identity politics. It has no connection with guns, abortion or immigration. If the Democrats allow the conversation to include gender identity issues around bathrooms they will be rejected by the majority, as they should be. That does not mean that the Dems should not care about these issues or that they should not advance progressive legislation to advance them. But it DOES mean that they should not campaign on issues that are fractious and which will alienate red state voters. There are ways to handle these issues that work well but which the current Dems running do not seem to understand. For example, both liberals and conservatives own guns and both groups care about safety and limiting access to murderers. There should be a huge centrist group in this country that agrees on these issues, but both sides have allowed the discussion to become partisan and extreme. This helps Republicans more than Democrats so if Dems want to win on the issue they are the ones that must change the discussion. Gun safety=yes, gun control=no, and they could get more red state votes.
The Democrats are the ideological majority in this country and they have been played for fools by the third wave concessions into acting like Republicans. To win that has to change.
Seems like the "socialist" wing of the dems is sort of like guy in the crows nest of the Titanic, who is dreaming of his time off in NY instead of looking out for an iceberg (Trump).
2
This is why Democrats need to elect clever people to Congress, who can walk and chew gum at the same time. Yes, I am sympathetic to the young, green newcomers who want to shake up the the party, and I wish them luck.
However. After you are elected and show up for work, it requires a special, and very different, kind of strategy and discipline to govern effectively. Republicans are very good at it. Democrats tend to be ungainly, disorganized, easily distracted and gullible.
Take the time to learn when to raise hell and when to shut up and do what Nancy tells you to do.
1
"...How much does Nancy Pelosi have to worry about a left-center split...
Not one iota...
Ask Trey – who couldn't countenance being a "minority" member...
Or Adam – who now has the power to subpoena the center-drawer in Trump's desk...
Any dissent by Brett not withstanding – assuming the Chief Justice continues to obstruct right-fine conservative jurisprudence...
Many of the constructs around – the US Congressional variant of – parliamentary procedure aren’t going to survive the AI era...
But the perceptron-like threshold-binary behavior of nonsupermajority coalitions will...
The Europeans – plural – thought they could mess with Speaker Nature...
They’re still arguing...
One word from Nancy – in that grandmother voice – and they’d all come together...
They know what her version of no-deal exit looks like...
Pexile...
1
This is all about whether or not illegal immigrants who try to buy guns are reported to ICE?
Uh... where does that rank in the priorities of the American people?
If you want to help immigrants, and rein in ICE, then realize that we have to win the presidency and majorities and in the Congress before that can get done.
On any of the big issues... climate change, gun control, immigration, the excessive power wielded by the rich and corps, you can't win them from the minority.
Fall on your sword over a side issue and all is lost folks.
To get gun control, there will be some distasteful concessions made.
To get progress on ANY big issue, there will be distasteful concessions made.
Fact of life, get over it and get done what you can.
1
Pelosi:
‘We Are Either a Team or We’re Not’
That's about it. Might even make a good campaign slogan.
"Two key wings of the congressional Democratic Party have divergent political interests — on one hand the ascendant progressives led by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, MANY OF WHOM have proudly declared themselves democratic socialists..."
Many? I count TWO in the House. With Bernie, make it three -- out of 535 elected members of congress.
This far right trope about Socialists (aka COMMUNISTS!) taking over the Democratic party is now an official Republican talking point. So it must be a big problem for Democrats?
The biggest political problem for center/liberal Americans is that the center/mainstream press keeps taking the bait, allowing right wing spin to frame every debate.
1
Pelosi is very shrewd. She knows the 26 swung the House to a Dem majority and she is ecstatic to have them. But she has to do the Mom thing and scold them so the rest of her children don't feel that there's others in the family getting special treatment. Privately she understands exactly why the 26 are doing what they are doing and if it helps them get re-elected she's good with it. But publicly she has to slap their wrists. No big deal at all.
1
I'm a middle-aged diehard Democrat who voted Bernie in the primary and gladly lined up behind Hillary in the general election. (I used to occasionally consider Republicans but Newt Gingrich Brough an end to that foolishness). I came to the comments to voice an opinion similar to the many here about the 'perfect being the enemy of the good' and 'you can't legislate when you're not in power.' The brilliant comments here have changed my mind. Democrats need to stand for something. I suspect Obama's relatively easy election was because we all expected something new and different. We knew not to with Hillary. Left, left, march!
18
@PJP: I'm the same as you. I'm a Massachusetts Independent who voted for Bernie in the primary and for Hillary in general election because the alternative, for me, was too horrific. Like you, I used to consider GOP candidates but they've gotten so nutty over the past 25 years that I can't consider them any longer. I miss the GOP that used to welcome the Bill Welds, Silvio Contes, and Nelson Rockefellers--moderates who were socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Today's GOP wants to take the country back to the 1250s, so anything reasonable or moderate proposed by the democrats looks radical by contrast. I never expect to get everything I want with a candidate, but compromise shouldn't mean democrats always cave to absolutely everything the GOP wants and the GOP never has to give up anything in return. Now, I don't care. The GOP plays and fights dirty, so democrats have to do the same. Sometimes you have to stand up on your hind legs and fight.
2
@PJP, I suggest you read about the electoral record of the British Labour party - pay special attention to the Kinnock years; this is what you welcome with your rallying call...
2
I never underestimate the Dems' ability to shoot themselves in the foot - more specifically, the far left's ability to do so. I'm a moderate Dem and I am really worried that policies such as the New Green Deal will kill our prospects to get Trump out in 2020 (which should be our common goal). The economics of these policies just don't add up. I agree that we have an inequality problem. But the government can't just give away everything to fix it by taxing only the top earners a higher rate. The math doesn't add up. Most Americans understand this and will not support it. Trump didn't win because the Dems were too moderate. He won because Clinton was a flawed candidate that played right into his hands. Even if the policies of AOC and Bernie only are supported by a minority of Democrats, the media will play them up to the point that it looks like a socialist majority is trying to lead the party. That's when Trump gets re-elected and entire world suffers as a result. It's NOT the time to shoot for the moon. This is a gradual process.
1
@Willy21
What is this, another case of selective memory -- it must be if you think the only reason Trump won is because "Clinton was a flawed candidate".
And Trump isn't??
Think again.
1
So, what solution moderate Dems are offering to inequality? None? Do they hope to be elected just because they are not Trump? This strategy failed miserable last time, but will be successful now?
As you sagely point out, Republicans will brand these centrist Democrats as liberal no matter how they vote. Thus, I believe these first termers ought to resist and not vote for the insidious, non-germane amendments offered by the GOP to divide and weaken the majority. If the underlying bill, i. e., slowing down gun sales to allow a reasonable time to do background checks, is a serious effort to address a singular issue, voting against abstruse amendments is easily explainable. Voters, even in a lean right or left district, can recognize interference for what it is.
If the Dems still want to campaign on the classic divide of left vs right and liberal vs conservative, and all of the wedge issues that they bring with them then yes, they have a huge problem. There are very many progressive goals however, that span this dichotomy and have wide support on both sides: things like increasingly progressive taxation, free or very cheap college, passing an amendment to reverse Citizens United, reducing the military budget and tightly re-regulating finance. Progressives and their allies on these issues are going to continue to push these issues through, over the wreckage of the old Democratic party if we have to.
2
How about a discussion on why we even have a de-facto two-party system in the first place? Of course there were compelling technical/administrative reasons, once upon a time. But now? I'm not advocating for doing away with political parties, but I would like to see dispassionate "Pros and Cons" lists.
I'll start: Our two-party system today looks more like the NFL -- "Winning isn't everything; it's the ONLY thing" -- than public service or government. (Oh and BTW, that's a "con.")
Those moderates are going to be shocked when they discover all those centrist votes bought them nothing when re-election rolls around. They'll all be tied to Pelosi and the left regardless and they'd be better off voting for things that help their constituents rather against them in the hopes Fox News will say something nice about them.
2
On procedural votes that Democratic Party MUST march in lock-step. Of course. Dems should vote w/ their principles, that doesn't mean they have to surrender the power to set the agenda.
My God, don't we understand what's at stake here? Purity tests are ridiculous, but Purple Dems need to understand that THEY ARE PART OF A NATIONAL RESPONSE to the crises arising in this country due to the abuses of this administration, not to mention the work we have to do give Americans a chance at a better life.
Stick with the policy debate (where we are generally on the same page) and forget about the labels made up by the media and the GOP. No matter how "centrist" we are (i.e.,Obamacare and Cap and Trade are Heritage Foundation ideas) we will be labeled as "socialist".
A winning platform for the Democrats needs to focus on issues that, while a leftward drift from where we are now, are centrist enough that most of the country supports them in polls.
1. Universal healthcare first, because everyone is going to need healthcare at some point in their lifetime. It's time to take that goal for granted, and start the serious discussion of how to do it, how to pay for it, and what the phase-in timeline should be.
2. Campaign finance reform. All but the most hardcore of the far right support greater limits on lobbyists' and the ultra rich's influence over elected officials. Most Americans, even Republican ones, understand that their votes are being ignored in favor of big money interests, and they don't like it. Push for publicly financed campaigns, greater transparency, and greater accountability to voters.
3. Higher taxes on the rich. As Tim Wu and others have pointed out, in polls most Americans support this. Keep reminding those who want to MAGA that when America was supposedly great, marginal tax rates were upwards of 70%. Ask them how much they really benefited from Trump's "tax cut" and then tell them how much Jeff Bezos did. Everyone in the middle class pays taxes, so everyone cares about them.
Throw in some infrastructure proposals, genuine help for veterans and military personnel, improving disaster response, and maybe lowering student loan interest, and you've got a solid platform you can defend.
1
@Nikki -- CO2.
@Lee Harrison
I considered listing that, but then didn't put it in the top three because, while it is crucial to me and other well-educated people, the less-educated either believe lies about it or don't care much about it. Win first, by focusing on the issues that most people, even the ones who aren't scientifically literate, can understand and get behind. Once you've won and delivered a few key victories (such as expanding Medicare to 55+), then you can spend political capital on issues you know are important but are divisive enough that focusing on them might keep you from winning elections in the first place. i did indirectly address it in the need to strengthen disaster planning and response, because even those who don't believe global warming is real still want help if their home is destroyed by a flood or tornado. You have to keep it concrete for the less educated voters or you lose them. Plus, people who need help and don't get it become angry, and you can use that anger, so be sure to check back in with the folks in Puerto Rico and the Panhandle and see how satisfied they are. That will be more persuasive than a technical paper on carbon emissions.
Democrats are more moderate than Republicans. Republicans are not conservative and seem to not negotiate in good faith (Mitch McConnell). Democrats are more fact based, more patriotic, more fiscally responsible, more pro-family and pro-life. We have a much wider range of points of view. Right wing media are powerful drivers of conflict so our country is taught that radical right-wing policies are "conservative" and anything not right-wing is radical left. This is bad for our country.
The center belongs to those that will restore the free market by taking down the monopolies and oligopolies that have caused corporate profit margins to swell to the detriment of working families.
Either the days of Koch Industries, Exxon and Comcast are numbered or our democracy will be replaced by autocracy for a generation or more.
1
If you give the voters a choice between a Republican and a Republican-light moderate, the voters will choose the Republican every time. However, keep beating your 3-way drum Edsall. Nevermind, that the House of Representative should have never been capped at 435 which creates 2 gerrymandered Senates. Nevermind, that the Progressive representatives represent way more PEOPLE than the moderates. Just tell me one thing, what do the Moderates want other than the status quo?
Because at this point, I want every last 'Moderate' turncoat RINO to face a Progressive primary challenger! I would rather face off against Republicans with real Democrats, than to have Republican-light confederates stabbing me in the back at every turn.
2
Reading the comments, I see plenty of people stating that Democrats need to be centrists. Respectfully, I disagree. Democrats need to be more progressive. Republican voters are not switching sides. Democrats only hope is to become more progressive in order to reel in non voters and new voters. The status quo has not worked for a majority of this country’s young people. If Democrats can offer them hope for the future, they will become more active. Progressive candidates need to start educating people about the great inequity between the haves and have nots. The republicans have been providing disinformation about the Democratic Party and illegal immigrants for years and they got Trump elected.
2
Big Tent means strategic accomodation--and as your chart on split-ticket voting, and other data show, this is not an electorate given to accomodating and "making allowances." That's the crisis of democracy, and particularly for the Democratic Party. It's so ironic that this element of intransigence, which has plagued the right with its various "ultra" and "never" cells, now threatens to prevent progressive unity. As and when that happens, the rightward, downward spiral of American politics will continue, and we will continue our slide into right-wilng authoritarianism.
1
Napoleon said ‘Never interfere with an enemy while he’s in the process of destroying himself.’
I don't even think Trump needs to mount much of a campaign at this point. The good work is being done for him.
6
The media succeeds by attracting eyeballs and ears. Republicans win by identifying Democrats with the most extreme Democrats (which often requires that the most extreme Democrats be invented). That the Democrats are getting too extreme is both a belief fostered by the other side and a winning story to attract eyeballs and ears.
The result is that the media, by pursuing its own interests, helps Republicans and Trump in particular. Trump's constant antics and the fights over and against them make news and draw eyeballs and ears. It even brings new customers to The New York Times. The corresponding Democratic warning about Republicans is that they are racist, but that message is not as exciting as the charge of extremism. Long political campaigns and unlimited advertising spending are also in the interest of media.
These built-in biases are good for Republicans and Trump, and bad for a government that makes sense and works.
5
I immensely value Senator Bernie Sanders' emphasis on the needs all poor and working people have in common, and recognizing,
but NOT emphasizing the diverse identities...
with the idea that by working together to meet common needs, people of diverse identities and values will have a better chance to understand each other's point of view.
If Democrats are going to be a strong coalition, they need to recognize that immigrants, undocumented or legal, often take jobs, and, maybe housing, from poor and working people.
The people who benefit most from immigration are, of course, the immigrants, but also the "one percent".
The issue of immigration, legal or illegal is very complicated!
Democrats need to recognize that immigration is seen negatively by many people who, otherwise, might be receptive to the issues of Progressive Democrats.
The US would be wise to stop wrecking whole countries, something, embarrassingly supported by most Democrats,
and instead of destabilizing countries to benefit the national interest [the global elite], stabilize countries so that people don't have to flee US provoked death and destruction.
2
@Lucy Cooke: The Democrats are failing by alienating their core constituents: the middle class hard working blue collar taxpaying families to now in favor of every left-wing extreme wacko cause.
A perfect example is the Representative from Minnesota, the female muslim. She shares almost nothing with the male pipe-fitter from Cleveland Ohio. He'll move to the right rather than align himself with Illyian whats-her-name.
Multiply that by thousands and you can see the Democrats will now longer be the party of Harry Truman.
1
@Lucy Cooke -- as to illegal immigrants "taking jobs" -- the big question is to what degree wages would rise for the jobs illegal immigrants commonly "take" so that Americans would be willing to do them, vs just have the jobs disappear taking that economy (whatever it is) with them.
All of these issues are murky, hard to get data.
What case can you make that it is the United States that is "wrecking" Guatemala or Nicaragua ... or even Mexico?
Democrats need to accept each other. The only litmus test should be resistance to establishing litmus tests. When you put forth a separate platform with an ultimatum that everyone has to toe your line then and only then you are beyond the pale: for that intolerance, not for how left or how center your positions stand.
1
Above anything else, our House leader needs a better PR strategist. Why did CNN and MSNBC ignore the anti-trust hearings in favor of more anti-Trump hearings. And what about the gun bill win?! That's a big deal, one that both networks should have spent considerable time on. I'd work on the "go-to" Democratic talking heads and train them to get the strategic messages out.
3
@Will
Just like Trump made big money for the networks in 2016, anti- Trump makes big money now.
Our so beloved Capitalism prioritizes what makes money,
not what is fair, just, good for the citizenry.
Strange system the US worships.
1
This raucous in the Democratic party seems healthy to me. In a democracy people are supposed to disagree and work towards what is Truthful (fact-based), or make compromises to respect people's individual truths (on cultural issues). The Democratic party seems to be a parliamentary system from within; the problem is that such a system is not solid, and therefore easy to divide-and-conquer by the Republicans whose party does not allow for dissent.
1
Corporate centrist Democrats had their chance (Bill Clinton, Barack Obama) and blew it. The ideas promoted by the so-called "radical left wing" of today's Democratic Party would have been considered only slightly left of center back in the 1960s
Here's hoping Mrs. Pelosi can convince her caucus to act as a team. If not, then it's Republican rule until further notice.
3
To paraphrase Alexandra Pelosi’s description of her mother, “she could decapitate you, and you wouldn’t even know you were bleeding.”
While I personally think that the Democratic Party is doomed if it imposes any sort of “purity test” among its ranks, sometimes politicians need to have the capacity to articulate political strategy to their constituencies.
“Republicans will always attack them as liberals however they vote on these gotcha procedural motions.”
The first rule of Republican politicking is, there is no such thing as ‘good faith’. Mitch McConnell is a case study in this phenomenon.
67
@ubique
Chuck Schumer engaging in good faith compromise with President Trump? Who among us believes this could happen? Maybe the tooth fairy?
‘We Are Either a Team or We’re Not’
It's stated plainly in the Handbook: "Non-willing to work(ers) of the world, Unite! The ultimate team.
If a democratic president does not get elected the progressive agenda cannot be enacted and a re-election of Trump will embolden him to enact whatever whim comes to him as his authoritarian style will have been affirmed. Far left socialist agendas will not fly with those states whose electoral votes determine who wins the presidency. Getting some of the left agenda put thru is better than nothing as TRump will move the country to far right partnering with FOX NEWS STATE TV to rule as an authoritarian kleptocrat.
The annoying thing about this is that it makes every vote about party loyalty and gamesmanship against the Republicans, rather than voting for (or against) a measure on its merits. Many Democrats, even economically liberal ones like me who support the Green New Deal and Medicare for All, would consider barring illegal immigrants from buying firearms to be common sense. Some of us are just disgusted with the partisanship and game playing in Congress, which prevents legislation we actually need and want from happening, and would rather our representatives vote on the bill actually in front of them.
5
The point which I think needs repeating is this:
“Republicans will always attack (moderate Democrats) as liberals however they vote on these gotcha procedural motions.”
And as we should have learned by now, the more you try to deny a bully's label, the better it sticks. So might as well stick together as a team.
5
In the long run (which still matters), the Congressional Democrats are better served by struggling through differences based in principle, than their Republican colleagues are served by their cowardly union based on prostrating themselves before Trump and Fox News.
3
I am a millennial. And I am a centrist. Some of the people I know, borderline gen X/millennials, are centrists too. Don't assume all the younger crowd are left-leaning and vice versa. And when young voters don't vote, they should own up to the blame. It's silly to say it was somebody else's fault. Accept responsibility for your actions. Many seats were won by moderate Democrats, they have to answer to their constituents too. If you don't have their backs, how can we trust you to be a team? I have lived in two countries, seen two cultures. Maturity and wisdom come with age and life experiences, but there are also some who never grow up. There are also others who have to grow up early because of life experiences. The key is to listen to each other, and acknowledge better wisdom when you see it. Not to want to destroy everything that stands in your way.
3
The only reason the Democrats have a majority in the House is that they were able to flip a lot of Republican seats. How many of those flipped seats were one by Progressives? The problem with Progressives is they can't count. Progressive ideas are fine, but the truth is that Moderates are their best friends and they had better remember that.
2
I voted for Trump in 2016. I sometimes forget why. Then action by Democrats in Congress makes me remember.
Yes, it was the tapes of conversations by Clinton's chief of staff John Podesta that Vladimir Putin sent to Julian Assange who then broadcast them to the world.
Democrats want to impeach Trump for colluding with the Russians to release those tapes. This has never been proven.
But Democrats conveniently forget what was on those tapes. Clinton had lied about illegal immigration, telling one group that she supported open borders, telling another that she didn't.
in 1986 Congress passed an Immigration Reform Act. During the last 30 odd years Democrats have sought to undercut that bill, declaring many cities in the US to be sanctuary cities.
Now Nancy Pelosi wants to discipline House members when they vote their conscience and report illegal immigrants to authorities when they fail a background check.
Doesn't Pelosi understand that in order to convict Trump once he is impeached she will have to convince some Republicans to break with their own party? To defy the leadership?
Pelosi demands a rigid conformity---NO THOUGHT ALLOWED AMONG SENATE DEMOCRATS!
Our democracy is completely dead. Yes, Trump is the worst president in history. But Democrats are even worse.
Meanwhile the NY Times runs an article decrying the lack of medical care for illegal immigrants at the border.
Many communities in Trump's middle America, hated by liberals, have NO DOCTORS AT ALL.
5
@Jake Wagner
That was good Jake.
May I respectfully suggest that all those "centrist" Democratic voters who are so dismayed by "leftist" Democratic politicians that they're tempted to vote Republican, please, please give in to your temptation. Now, not later.
With friends like you, Democrats don't need any enemies.
1
As the article states, there aren’t enough people like you to form a majority. So, it appears you DO need friends like that...
1
Done.
If young people and other ardent Bernie Bros leave the game like they did when Sanders failed to get the Dem nomination, Trump will win again. Those who argued there was no difference between HRC and DJT were either willfully blind or petulant beyond measure. I hope the Progressive wing is ascendant, but I will support the Democratic Party nominee. The GOP is irredeemable.
2
After 35 years of Reagnomics, Americans are definitely ready for a move "leftward" on economics. Let's call it a necessary "return to normal."
The energy, ideas and creativity are with the new lefty Democrats. Rather than standing for the "centrist" (vs. progressive) wing of the Democratic Party, Ms. Pelosi could provide a great service to the Democrats and nation by helping to sift the bad ideas from the good, and help shape and refine that energy into tangible, reasonable and achievable goals.
Genuine socialism - even communism - was quite a strong political force in America for the first part the 20th Century. FDR, a wealthy patrician, took some of those socialist principles and leavened, massaged and re-formed them to become palatable to individualist Americans. Oh, and helped build a Democratic dynasty in the process.
1
The democratic leadership along with some of their moderate (read conservative) members, has after an initial celebration of winning 40 seats in the election, immediately started a campaign to reign them in and ridicule their plans and promises that helped win these new seats.
This is the same old backroom deal making that has hampered and stalled any progress in the Democratic Party for decades.
Their condemnation of Representative Ohan’s remarks about Israel as being antiseminist shows what they really think. You can never criticize Israel, no matter the dictatorial regime by Nethanayu and his corrupt financial dealings, no matter the positions of several extremist anti-democratic parties in Israel which should instead be a warning sign to the democratic leadership.
This is how the Republicans work on a daily basis for decades, immediately attack anyone who has a different position and make it sound as if they racist.
The democratic leadership instead should listen to progressive Jewish voices who have condemned the present day Israel directions and the dangers created by the Israel President and his extremist supporters.
Why are Democratic leaders so afraid of criticizing Israel, criticizing is very constructive when your friends are moving into a very dangerous direction. We do that in real life all the time.
"...democratic socialists, and on the other the band of moderates..."
"Moderation" is perfection (not mediocrity)--it's the perfect amount/degree of whatever--from salt to healthcare.
""Democratic socialism" IS moderation as the 30 countries outranking healthcare in US (31) and Cuba (32) demonstrate (WHO). It's government FOR the people, not FOR corporations. (Cuba would also outrank the US if not for the embargo,)
The Times seems oblivious to the fact that the labels for classifying political platforms/ideologies are themselves ideologically charged--not at all neutral.
Thus labeling them "moderates" endorse them--turning a report into an editorial. "Moderate" is used at lest 14 times in this essay--turning Edsall into a rumpled cheerleader.
Campaigns are marketing productions--as Trump proves.
But they can be (also) educational--teaching political philosophy-- starting with basic vocabulary--rising above common prejudices and labeling. Reality--physical or political--does not come preconceived--self classified. We invent the classifications, then apply them. The classification systems evolve--if you are progressive; they improve. If not--you are regressive--stuck with dated systems of ideas.
Sanders is trying. Trump--and The Times--are stuck marketing brand names. It's a travesty. It's also more Sanders sabotage.
1
As a recent article by David Brooks points out, 181 million Americans currently receive health insurance through their employer, and 70% of those are satisfied with their insurance. Jettisoning this system (which evolved over several decades, in part as a response to federal wage controls) may make sense, may in the end make more people happy, but in NO WAY can be described as “moderate.”
2
@randomxyz
Moderate is neither excess nor deficiency.
"About 7 million fewer Americans have health insurance today than did four years ago...The United States is the only large, highly developed country that lacks universal health coverage. At the same time, healthcare costs in the US are the highest in the world" ...In 2018...13.7% [45 million] of Americans lacked health insurance" (Guardian). That's excessive re uninsured; deficient re coverage. Thus NOT "moderate". Universal coverage thus IS indeed moderate--(by ordinary meanings of words, values and standards in developed countries--just not for those in the insurance business.
Well, from my perspective we've never been allowed to play even as we are expected to show up for the game. Why is it that democratic socialist values have been benched so long? I think you have a lot of nerve even asking if we're a team. We do all the work and you take all the money? That's how its worked for the last 50 years. Nancy Pelosi is nowhere near my position and further more, she absolutely doesn't care what I think as a lefty over on the bench. She and her ilk are up to their collective necks in money and that money is what they represent 100%. Constituents? Give me a break. I'm a constituent and I got nothing from them for 50 years economically. I'm encouraged by what I'm seeing in the Democratic parties moving to the left finally but really, I'm ready to boot them all off the team and let the bench have a whack at this. Pelosi, the Clintons, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, they should form a third party and allow the rightful owners and drivers of progressive policies to have a voice in this. As well, there is climate change. Capitalism is uniquely unsuited to the catastrophe which is coming.
1
@Joseph
Good point Sir. I'd like to add droping the term "Social Democrats". What America needs now was FDR's unfinished work, the Second Bill of Rights. For humanity's sake! Should we call it the Humanitarian Party?
For the record I'm an old, white man, who got the Vote when I was 18 in 1971. I registered as Independent and had been an Independent, voting for Republicans and Democrats until things got crazy during the Clinton years with the GOP. I changed to Dem so that I could vote for Bernie in the Primaries then held my nose and voted for Clinton.
The Democrat Party needs to move forward with Progressive Ideas and Policies and these Moderate Dems need to start educating their constituents regarding what Democratic Socialism stands for and how many "socialist" programs are already ingrained into American life, and enjoyed, by almost everyone in America! Instead of being reactive to the, often, ignorant misconceptions of people, who are spoon fed a false narrative by Fox "News" and the Right-Wing, be proactive and enlighten the voters with facts. "Do you like the Police, Fire, Education Departments to name a few ... the Services that Americans use and count on every day.
People are scared of the unknown ... use your time to educate ...
Then the Dems need to put a coherent policy platform forward. Right now, all anyone is hearing is the Breitbart-amplified frothings of AOC.
@Bruce ... I agree with your first part with the inclusion, in my opinion, a Progressive Policy Platform. I strongly disagree that AOC is "frothing" ... she is intelligent, strong and a fighter! The Right-Wing don't know what to do about her except rave ...
If the new left gets too carried away with its holier-than-thou stands on everything from the environment to its criticism of Israel, and they lose control of the House because they’re too far left, so be it.
Life will go limping ahead with or without them.
That’s democracy, for ya.
3
New representatives such as Ocasio-Cortez and Omar are flush with the energy of youth and woman-power, but they have a lot to learn about how the sausage in the US Congress is made. They have to learn which battles to pick and how to lose and come back. And they need to get off Twitter. It's an enervating method of communication and makes them appear childish. If they have something to say stand in front of a camera and say it. No news organization will deny them that.
2
Calm down, everybody.
This is not a time to go off half cocked; this is a crisis. Like every such human have ever faced, there will be great energy expended in headless chicken circles.
Like those chickens, the old comfortable political scale with parties and individuals sitting in their allotted right. center, and left slot where the reasoning of their arguments placed them.
Ain't no such. Hasn't been since figures on the right, Nixon, Atwater, Starr, Newt, Cheney, Rove, et al, abandoned reason for 'anything goes' politics. The gop has gone off the scale, which means the scale is worse than useless, it's a distraction.
The important fact now is that exploitable gap is between 'voters' and the public; salvation lies in people too decent to participate in politics.
To survive this crisis, we have to get people to accept that we are in danger, and that without all of us working together, we go extinct. Starting now.
Talking the old measures reinforces the idea that it's more of the same, and that will not get people out to vote. It was not right center or left brought this blue wave; it was people who got involved, srarting where they were and moving forward.
It is the sensible people who dropped out of the filthy process our politics have become, it is those people we have to inflame, so they get off their couch and help out.
It is work together or die.
Got nothin' to do with center left; that's just the gop smokescreen.
1
Time to slip the surly bonds of " Same ol' Same ol' ".
No more GOP lite.
The Grand Oligarch Party, along with its lying psycho carnival barker, needs to be shoveled back into the latrine from where it came from.
Especially with health care. Time to rescue us from having to pay ransom to the Health care "$ gouging" industry.
Mobster Health Service is not service at all.
Just give us the truth,..
Call it what it is "An Extortion, Protection Racket".
With same ol', same ol', The Oligarch will always be banging on our door. Always coming round for the rip off extortion payment. Muscling you every single month. until you die, most likely from a horrible health issue or the terrible side effects from their cures. By the way, how's that dresser full of pill bottles? Watch them grow.
I am a liberal Democrat. I support the Green New Deal. And gun control. I'd be happy if noone owned a gun. I hate guns.
But here's my party saying, "We want strong gun control, but not for the undocumented. It's ok if they have guns. They'd only use them for good purposes (???). This is insane. They have to pass background checks like everybody else. And if they want guns for bad reasons, like crime, mass shooting, killing their wives, then they will get deported. Menos mal. Come on, Pelosi, use your power for issues we all believe in!
4
@Martha How are law abiding citizens supposed to protect themselves during home invasions, car jackings, etc if they don't have guns?
As Will Rogers famously said “I’m not a member of any organized political party —‘I’m a Democrat.”
11
@George Shaeffer
That was said when it was the Democratic Party.
Today's party is very organized in keeping the Republicans as the default majority party.
Unite to beat Trump and the republicans! There is no hope for any of the progressive ideas , if the democrats don't take the WH in 2020. There will be no hope for a "Green Deal "or "Medicare for all" if you leave Trump in power and worse than that is the lasting damage they can do to our economic future in a second term of Trump and Friends .
Key takeaway: Most who follow the winding political paths of our two party system have heard, and often take solace, in the concept that, “All politics is local.” It’s not. Not anymore.
Voters splitting their tickets has fallen from 41.3 percent in 1980 to just over 14.3 percent in 2016.
Dems, leftist and far leftists (myself) need the moderates. We have to learn how to deal with this. Revolutionary suicide is still suicide.
A depressing article.
Undocumented residents should not be trying to buy guns, and a measure that brings consequences to the act of doing so seems eminently sensible to me and does not offend my generally pro-immigrant sentiments.
“This is not a day at the beach. This is the Congress of the United States.”
Exactly Ms Pelosi. it's okay to have party-fun at the beach, but when in Congress focus on the people's business and make good laws. It's a simple rule: nation first; party second.
4
Two words - Electoral College.
Last time I checked, it was the Rust Belt that made presidents. The Dems ignore this at their own peril.
3
To reach goal X, either you (a) step by step move to X or (b) you act to immediately get X.
If you do (a) you will undoubtedly have to compromise from the beginning and are likely to move very slowly and you will likely never make it all the way to X, and might get more opposition than you can handle. If you do (b) you will strongly motivate some to join you, but will also motivate some strongly to oppose you. You might get it all or at least a great deal with a radical movement behind you, or you might get excessive push-back and miss out on some moderate success. Obamacare tried (a); calls for universal health care generally argues for (b). Obamacare got a l ot out of its tactics and hard work on the part of many. But it might get watered down to insignificance and never accomplished many of its goals.
Change is hard either way, even when it is obviously needed.
The moderate and more aggressive Democrats are presenting themselves and all of us with these options.
The best result would be a bit of both -- setting up the big goal and reaching for it, then if that is unsuccessful fall back on some moderate gains and then call for more complete attempt to arrive at the goal.
So, it would be ideal for the "moderate" and "leftist" Democrats respected each other, and both continued to move the country in a (a)/(b) process of leaping and waking, moving us toward the big goal.
2
Politics today is no longer the Norman Rockwell painting of the lone dissenter standing and speaking at the town hall meeting, with his fellow citizens respectfully looking on. It’s more like a pitched battle in Game of Thrones - no place for individual reconsiderations of weaponry, tactics or strategy. The left wing agenda should be subsumed to the overall goal of winning the presidency and senate if possible.
The Republican Party has purged its Trump doubters and will be stronger after a 2020 win. Cementing a 6-3 SCOTUS majority, stocking the federal judiciary, and control of 2020 redistricting is just the tip of the iceberg on which the Democrats will find themselves skewered, not even mentioning 4 more years of lies and corruption. The left wing of the party is in its own echo chamber. The party must appeal to more centrist even conservative voters at this time. Universal health care is an important goal but will not happen in 1 election cycle, but we will be closer with a D win versus the alternative
2
That seeking consensus in the Democratic Party - on an effective strategy to enhance their political power - is like herding cats, is no big secret.
The Republicans may not know much, but they know one big thing: "We hate liberals and we all agree that our primary goal is to stick it to the liberals any way we can. Nuff said..."
The little problem here, is that in spite of the Democrats having numerical superiority in local and state government elections, and also in the general presidential elections, Republicans - in their wisdom - seem to have a way of winning, and controlling all the political power (to do nothing).
The Democrats - did you hear we're in big trouble in this country? - might do with a bit less flash, and little more "eye on the prize," 'cause we hurtin' out here...
4
This is a view, but it is a media-centric, and media created view. That doesn't mean its not real—the media creates its own reality, just as Finance creates its own money—but it doesn't necessary reflect the true political balance of forces.
What the new so called Socialists and progressives are trying to talk about is Class, not socialism and not moral rectitude. The people talking about that latter stuff are mostly people in the mainstream media or on social media.
But for the Alexandria Ocasio Cortez's, it really is about uniting the Working Class across racial and ethnic lines so that their concerns become central to the concerns of the Democratic Party at large. More like they used to be. And really, that is where Nancy Pelosi used to be coming from too. Pelosi's rejection of the Green New Deal was extremely short sighted, and surprisingly so.
The Democrats lost West Virginia, formerly an anchor of the Democratic Party, not because they were too class conscious, but because they stopped caring about class issues and became more concerned with social issues and identity politics. And it is the new leftists who are trying to restore the balance in the Party, not the old moderates who are just desperately treading water.
If your only goal in public service is figuring out ways to get reelected, you're not really serving the public. Many Democrats know this, the problem is that these days, their conversations with each other, are typically media-ted.
2
The Democrats have long been known as "The Party of Inclusion". It includes the wide range of interests that the Republicans, in their one-note party platform, ignore.
Republicans make life simple for themselves. Their singular viewpoint fights to direct wealth to the already wealthy, and let the negative consequences which follow these policies fall as they may, on 90 percent of Americans. They don't care...it's not their mission.
Democrats not only must consider all groups and viewpoints the Republicans ignore, they also have to fight to clean up the messes Republican lawmakers leave in their wake, like their rolling back of environmental protections, robbing from the Social Security Fund and cutting healthcare funds.
It is difficult to create a 1, 2 or 3-note platform from such diverse interests. To make a black and white choice of "Left" or "Center Left" even more difficult.
The Democrats who voted to turn illegal immigrants over to ICE are increasing the chances of these persons' deportation to their possible death. On the other hand, they're ensuring re-election in districts by appeasing voters who are prejudiced against people of color.
I've seen the quest for power in full ugliness among the Republicans for over two years. Democrats are the only ones who represent people of color, the poor and middle class, labor unions, teachers, people Republicans don't care about.
Pelosi must lead a Party of Inclusion, which includes Social Dems and Centrists.
1
@Lilou
I agree with you on all counts. But in the end, it will be up to the Social Dems and Centrists to decide if they want to be under the same tent.
4
What is your motivation in writing about Democrats who voted to turn "illegal" immigrants over to ICE when the vote only applied to those failing background checks while trying to purchase a gun?
@N. Smith--agreed. I think all will agree to be under the same tent, because it would be good for Dems to be in the majority...this past two-plus years has provided a dose of daily torture.
I think if certain representatives run to represent their districts, and promise what they can within the Democratic scope, that would work.
Racism is not a Democratic "thing", so, depending on the district, I'd avoid the subject (if it's a racist district), or be open about progressive immigration and racial solutions (if the district is to the left).
On the subject of raising taxes on the rich -- the Ocasio-Cortez version taxes the wealthy at 70%, after the first $10 million -- the Dems will face a different type of battle. Of course, the rich corporations and individuals will not want to give their tax break back, and fight it.
But the other part includes slightly higher taxes for everyone, to pay for universal health care, quality K-12 education, job retraining for those who've lost jobs to technology, $15 - $20/hour minimum wage, and, transforming, rather quickly, dependence on fossil fuel to thermal, solar, wind, and, only stable places, nuclear energy.
People want to live like those in Europe -- Norway seems to be a favorite -- but Europeans pay higher taxes to ensure all have a higher quality of life.
Americans hate taxes, so, Dems have to make credible promises that all new taxes will be earmarked for the progressive programs Americans want, not for corporate welfare.
Another Edsall column warning the Democrats not to move to the left: "the Democratic Party is in the midst of a socialist revolution that is pulling it sharply to the ideological left." No, the Democratic party is moving back to where it was in the 1960s. It's the Republican party that has undergone a neo-fascist revolution that has pushed it sharply to the ideological right. It has purged all of the moderates and that is why it is so effective at weaponizing the filibuster, the MTR, and all other obstructionist tactics, whenever Democrats control one or both Houses of Congress. Ever heard of gerrymandering Mr. Edsall? That's the partisan tactic that created districts so solidly Republican that Atilla the Hun could win a primary in them.
Meanwhile, polling shows over and over again that the supposedly conservative American electorate solidly supports universal health care, $15 minimum wage, higher taxes on the rich, the Green New Deal, and all of those other "radical socialist" ideas Democrats are espousing these days.
Let's get some non-partisan redistricting after the 2020 Census, do away with the Electoral College, get big money out of politics, have a really free and fair election, and see who wins.
2
@John: Yes, that is well and good. But, in order to redistrict, do away with the Electoral College, have free and fair elections, we also have to get rid of gerrymandering and we must win the presidency and the senate. We will still have a supreme court packed with conservatives. AOC won a seat in congress that was already democratic. To win the presidency and the supreme court, we have to remain moderate to get moderate voters who don't like how far to the right we've gone. That is what Mr Edsall is trying to show. Then, we can move leftward and start getting our good work done.
Enough of this wishy-washy moderate pearl clutching! As Tim Wu pointed out in the Times yesterday:
"About 75 percent of Americans favor higher taxes for the ultrawealthy. The idea of a federal law that would guarantee paid maternity leave attracts 67 percent support. Eighty-three percent favor strong net neutrality rules for broadband, and more than 60 percent want stronger privacy laws. Seventy-one percent think we should be able to buy drugs imported from Canada, and 92 percent want Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices. The list goes on."
As Wu points out, the Wall Street funded "moderates" in both parties are thwarting the popular will -- and that is what's making everyone so angry!
3
Moderate Democrats, whatever one thinks that really means, need to recognize at least two facts: (1) they would not have been elected without the energy the more progressive activists brought to the 2018 election; and (2) they have not figured out how to generate that energy on their own. Moderate Democrats need to generate their own energy. Being "not progressive" is not energizing the Democratic voter, even if, as in Houston, many moderates won their respective primaries. Not surprisingly, the energy on the progressive side and the energy of defeating this President and his enablers needs to find an energy in maintaining the goals of moderate voters, who have clearly demonstrated they can be a lazy, fickle, (and, yes, fearful) voting block. Moderates, QUIT stoking the fear of progressive ideas.
2
@livingston......"Moderate Democrats, whatever one thinks that really means, need to recognize at least two facts:".......Progressive Democrats, whatever one thinks that really means, need to recognize at least two facts: (1) by themselves they are not a majority; and (2) they are better off having someone in the White House they can talk to rather than a Conservative Republican who won't listen to them.
2
@W.A. Spitzer
See the recent viral video of Dianne Feinstein talking to children and teachers from her state to see just how well Democrats in power "listen" to their constituents.
1
@W.A. Spitzer: Exactly. We've got the house. We still need the senate and the presidency. Not much we can do about the supreme court.
The key to keeping the progressive and centrist wings of the Democratic Party together is a sane position on immigration.
Excessive immigration undermines the environmental protection and generous economic safety net that progressives want. They should give up their foolish opposition to limiting immigration
This motion to recommit is a great example. What good reason could there be not to report illegal immigrants who try to buy guns? Only a true open borders advocate could oppose that.
7
I count myself as a progressive Democrat, closer to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez than to her moderate opponents within the party. But I also recognize that there are diverse constituencies within the Democratic Party reflecting diverse local and regional interests.
My biggest quarrel with moderate Democrats like Doug McAdams and Abigail Spanberger isn't their moderation, per se, it's that they spend more time defending themselves against being associated with the left wing of their own party than in explaining what they are actually for. It's their defensive, apologetic tone I object to. And it's their willingness to allow themselves be taken hostage by Republican scare words that really offends me. They vowed to vote against Nancy Pelosi. Why? Because she is a "San Francisco liberal." Now they're scared of "socialism," a word Republicans have used ever since the New Deal to condemn any useful government program.
I don't respect any Democrat who won't "welcome the hatred" (FDR's phrase) of people who stand for privilege against the interests of the vast majority of ordinary people.
3
Neither AOC or Conner Lamb are Pelosi fans, although now apparently willing to cooperate to a certain extent, they're still a thorn in the side of platform unanimity. Will any ability of Pelosi to homogenize them in the House transfer to their constituents? We'll see.
1
We have a huge field of candidates representing the spectrum of Democratic ideology. We are going to have a raucous primary and really hammer out a party platform. I don’t think that in the general election Democrats are going to adopt the Bernie vs Hillary vs Jill Stein attitude that lost us the 2016 election and inflicted four years of Donald Trump on our nation. Some of us didn’t even vote at all for the office of the presidency. I believe that once we have a candidate, Democrats will unite behind that person in order to defeat Donald Trump. We cannot afford to vote only if we find ideological purity and are in complete agreement with the candidate.
1
Mr. Edsall just painted an accurate picture of how political forces work. It is true not just in USA but across the world. Diverse political forces always pull and push at different directions. How to marshal these forces away from self-destruction and do something productive for the people?
American democracy is being tested, and the test score looks miserable. At this point GOP seemed to be much more "unified" than the Democrats, acting collectively as Trump's new fixer as they put on a show at the Cohen hearing. Meanwhile more new entrants to the 2020 Democratic Party Primary wait in the wings. What does that say about USA politics?
China must has the same problems to deal with. Chinese leaders are holding their National People’s Congress in Beijing. Seems they spared themselves the public agony of infighting and set rational strategic plan for the country. Let the results speak for themselves. Check facts & evidence.
This dispute arose over an MTR that required gun dealers to report illegal attempts to buy weapons. The Blue Dogs/ Moderates voted in favor. For this they got yelled at by pelosi and threatened by AOC.
please tell me how any of that makes sense?
The idea in the MTR is commonsense.
It is something that we Dems should be Pro-posing, not O-pposing. Moreover, Members have to be allowed to "...Vote their Districts..." some of the time OR WE WILL LOSE THE HOUSE MAJORITY.
3
I have an idea that I would like to share with Thomas Edsall and through him to NY Times readers.
Let's make a deal between Democrats and Republicans.
Yes, Trump got the nomination and was elected presidentin 2016. But nobody could no at the time of his election how incompetent he would be. He believes himself to be an expert on history, on economics, and above all on the art of negotiation.
His accomplishments have been meager. That's because he fired those members of his cabinet who displayed competence and replaced them with sycophants who sing praises to Trump as he makes mistake after mistake.
The deal I suggest is a movement to the center for both Democrats and Republicans.
That involves impeachment of Trump and a corresponding impeachment of Pelosi and Schumer.
These are the people who shut down the government and left government workers without pay so that they could demonstrate their intransigence, their drunkenness with power.
Pelosi now wants to cut off any freedom of thought for House Democrats. All must agree on whatever the "majority" decides even when the majority is clearly wrong.
That hyperpartisanship will make it impossible to convict Trump in the Senate.
Meanwhile Democrats, through their action group Pueblo sin Fronteras, encourage poor families from Guatemala to make the trek to the US. The message is: Americans are divided and will feel sorry for families.
Democracy is almost dead. But a triple impeachment might save it.
1
Allow me to point out some political facts. While Democrats like to howl that Clinton won the national popular vote by a significant margin, they are reluctant to note that that Trump carried 2686 counties to Clinton's 487. You can bet that those new moderate Democratic representatives have noticed that their districts include a lot of those Trump counties.
Also, while the Rs have been much quicker to enforce ideological conformity by threatening primaries, the Ds are threatening to catch up. AOC, the gift that keeps on giving, has announced she's making Democratic target lists.
2
@Louis Sernoff
Just to be clear. Nobody "howls" louder than this president, against everyone and everything that doesn't agree with him.
Another thing.
His supporters STILL don't represent the majority of American voters.
2
Surprisingly, political 'progressives' turn out to be economic luddites. Though they protest that they desire the good of all, they really want to turn back the clock to a time when they felt safe, a time they understood, when the world seemed 'sane' and 'moral' to them. Sorry, it can't be done, though you can do a lot of damage trying. Incidentally, doing damage was the basic strategy of Ned Ludd, you may notice how successful that was.
1
I see great irony in the fact that the Dems seem to be running on a banner of their candidate, whom ever that might be, isn’t Trump - who won largely because he wasn’t Hillary. A huge pool, some primary battles and shouting from the left side of the party will certainly lead to Trumps re-election.
This all depends on how much you want to defeat Trump. If you don't care, if ideas are more important than results, go ahead, turn far left. Don't be surprised if you find yourself marching with a very small crowd (about the size of the crowd that thinks Trump is wonderful).
If however, your main goal is to remove Trump, then you might consider ideas that can actually be implemented, ones that will benefit all Americans, both left and right. Make no mistake, we are going to need several million former Trump supporters to help elect a new President. These former Trump supporters are appalled by his actions and are looking for someone who can lead the entire nation back to sanity. To spell it out explicitly, that means a centrist agenda, because they will not support a far left, progressive agenda.
So now, what's more important to you? Removing Trump and possibly getting a start on your agenda, or going all in on progressiveness and being a voice in the wilderness?
3
@Bruce1253
Actually a lot of the Trump voters were in favor of Health Care for All and all of the other ideas from Bernie Sanders. Theirs was a protest vote . It did not turn out well.
That said, even some Trump supporters are tired of him. Tired of his lies, tired of his self-serving ideas and tired of having him be the face of our Country.
I see a great future for so-called Progressives. Progress is not a dirty word, neither is socialism.
1
@Jean
I do not disagree, but remember that a leader must bring the group with her, and the group must be willing to go. If one gets too far ahead of the group, one becomes a visionary, and that is often a lonely position.
All this Left, Right, Center, Left of Center, Right of Center, Moderate and all the rest of the Political nonsense is not true. The only split in all of the K Street run Federal Government is between the Corporations, Banks and Wall Street on on the Wrong Side and the Normal Citizens of our Lost Country on the other side.
1
Needed more explanation on what exactly the motion to recommit does. Assume it means to recommit to committee, where amendments can be offered, but Mr. Edsall does not explain that.
On the substance, cannot understand why some progressive Dems refuse to enforce our immigration laws. Very few of us are for open borders. We have to take care of the American worker by encouraging higher wages and better working conditions. We can and should take in refugees, but economic migrants can overwhelm us.
Walls obviously do not keep out economic migrants, and are a waste of money. But all employers should be required to use E-verify and reporting undocumented workers to ICE should be the norm, not a stigma.
1
As a moderate in the swing Midwest, I want to tell the Democrats on the coasts to wake up. The only reason you're getting support in my area from many of us is because we dislike Trump. It's a mistake to assume that means we'll support a far left platform. Protecting those that are here illegally is not a centrist position. Medicare for all, which will bankrupt our health care system, is not a centrist position. Outsourcing all of our manufacturing to low labor cost markets is not a moderate position, but is embraced by both far left and far right. Free college and free daycare is not a moderate position. To pay for all this, taxes would need to go up to 50% or more, a common rate in Europe, but would be a shock here. Many of us will just stay home on election day, if this is your platform.
3
@Steve..."Medicare for all, which will bankrupt our health care system, is not a centrist position."....Every time I read this it is like scratching fingernails on the black board. The government run single payer system in Canada pays 40% less per person for healthcare than we do and they get a better healthcare outcome. If Medicare for all was only half as good as Canada we would collectively save $600 billion dollars a year. Stuff the bankrupt propaganda; one of the biggest reasons to support a program like Medicare for all is that it would save (SAVE) a whole bunch of money. The idea that it would be more expensive than what we are doing now is a load of garbage. One would hope that moderates in a swing state would be smart enough to figure this out.
2
@Steve
I'm one of those on the coast you speak of.
And we, especially those of us here in New York City, already knew the deal with Trump before he went on to get mesmerize the rest of the country with his half-baked promises and lies.
The problem basically lies in a gullible electorate willing to be entertained over being informed-- which is why people in swing-states voted for him to begin with.
2
@Steve
And Tax relief for the Wealthy and the Corporations is the real Welfare State we find ourselves in.
Everyone should pay their fair share, no loop holes, including for non-profits, Universities, Churches, etc. that the Republicans think is okay, but not okay to help the rest of the tax payers.
The Republicans are neither Conservative or Moderate.
They are just plain greedy and a lot of them are amoral. They only defend Trump because it serves their agenda to do so.
Staying home and not voting is not the answer. This is what happened already and look where it got us.
There is nothing far left about trying to save the planet for our children, helping lower income people obtain a good education, whether College or Vocational Training. Spending some of our tax money to pay for Health Care.
Makes a lot more sense than building a Wall that the Mayors and Land Owners on the Border deem not necessary. Giving away money to Corporations and the Wealthy who already have more than 90% of our citizens .
Please get behind a Democratic Candidate and work for them. This is what we need right now to rid ourselves of the corrupt Republican Administration.
1
The center right Dems have controlled the party for the past 30 years, and two presidencies. During this period they abetted or passively enabled: deregulation of the financial sector which led to 2007s recession; they abandoned labor, courted Wall Street, and nodded at the the explosion of wealth inequality; they undetermined public education by supporting charter schools and market driven approaches; gave us the market driven ACA which is expensive, leaves too many uncovered, and is vulnerable to dismantling by the Supreme Court; they undermined welfare which stoked poverty and homelessness; they supported three strikes laws which exploded incarceration; they gave Bush the votes to push the Iraq folly over the line; and they have done nothing effective to lessen the impacts of global warming which are now arriving at a neighborhood near you. With this record of failure, arguments that AOC and her gang of raging socialists should toe Pelosi's line are absurd. The only argument "moderates" can muster for party unity is to hold on to power in the House in 2020, and maybe win the presidency. Given the record summarized above, this puts them in the same grey zone as Mitch McConnell, whose only goal in governing is to keep the Repubs in power. We have had enough market driven centrism.
2
Until the Dems learn the power of "doubling down," something the Republicans learned long ago, they will continue to lose. Republicans know that principled stands gain converts, regardless of how distasteful the principle. Moderate Dems will continue the tradition of losing at exactly the time winning is most important by compromising on principle...their specialty.
There's a chance that politics don't matter.
Of course they do matter as election cycles produce effects as wonderful as nuclear arms deals or as terrible as a war in Iraq. But these are foreign policy areas owned by direct actions of Congress and the executive.
The longer run phenomena directly affecting citizen well-being change slowly. We were "once" satisfied with the status quo of the minimum wage, health care insurance, child care, college costs, and housing. The memory of satisfaction is rooted in an ideological security blanket of private economic freedom--low taxes, "right to work". But it's all falling apart for workers, and the center of the Party has no answers that don't mean we have to take the ideological pacifiers out of our mouths. Older people--read "those with investments"---are scared, but the young are determined and galvanized.
So, the only question is when the Democrats accommodate the overwhelming need for a shift by preparing a policy agenda that risks confrontation with oligarchs who will not share the pie with Americans. It is going to happen and the smug and self-satisfied can shout socialist until they are red, white and blue in the face. If Trump has to win 4 more years until this process is completed, then that's that.
The dream of a modern progressive country based on social democracy will have to wait until the Trump crisis is ended. To reverse the massive Republican electoral corruption that led to Trump being in the Oval Office, the Democrats will need to win both Houses of Congress as well as the White House. This means turning some Red States blue. There is no way to attract the MAGA Hatters- racists and religious fundamentalists in these states. The Democrats need charismatic new leaders that can attract moderates as well as progressives in swing states. It should be obvious even to those who justly believe in democratic socialism as is practiced in the modern world that the United States has yet to join.
If young voters don't show up to vote for a balanced winning ticket, then they will suffer the most from the steepening descent of the United States into corporate fascim led by Donald Trump.
2
@Jefflz First, Red States are not going to magically turn Blue. It is an impossible calculation under present conditions. Second, people from bastions of ultra-liberal power centers should develop a grasp of the body politic. Liberals might dislike the MAGA Hatters, most of them equally despise you. And there is the conundrum. A large mass of American multi-generational citizenry are concerned with future political displacement under the present doctrine of the Democratic Party. Unrestrained globalism and immigration is not a platform that appeals in any way to that electorate. Unless the Democrats alter course, it is most likely a second term for Trump, and a return to a Republican House of Representatives in 2020.
2
@R
The phrase "ultra-liberal" gives away the right wing extremist position. No way to win hard core Red States. However the 2016 election was stolen by 70,000 votes in three Electoral College states- WI, MI, PA. Those are the areas of greatest concern for Democrats.
2
@Jefflz Your assumption of extremist position was already proven in your earlier comment. Very few votes are going to be turned with characterizations you expressed of opposition voters. Don't overlook that the Trump campaign was heavily over-spent by the Democratic candidate in 2016. It most likely will no reoccur in 2020. Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania share some common attributes. (I am originally from the Upper Midwest.) The concerns, identified in my earlier comment, will resonate in those areas. Do not be misguided, it will be an uphill battle.
I may agree with many of the very progressive ideas of Cortez and the new cadre of lefties in the House. But I also dread the notion of a Trump re-election, losing the House again, and dwindling hopes that Dems can take back Senate. That is exactly what will happen if their idealism -- and I believe narcissism in some cases -- clouds their judgment. I still haven't forgiven Ralph Nader (who had been a hero of mine) and all his high-minded rhetoric for giving us W.
156
@steve
It is true that Nader helped place W in the Oval Office but he was joined by corrupt election officials in Florida and the Supreme Court. The concern about a split vote is extremely valid because the GOP is still immersed in voter suppression and the Russians have joined them in their systematic efforts to steal elections.
14
@steve
A recount of the ballots in FL showed Gore won.
We tried running a centrist against Trump. He won any way. I think it is crazy to say to people that MFA is to much or we can ignore climate change. I'm not sure that it is a winning strategy to say that Democrats are close to the center.
5
@steve worse you can argue Stein gave us Trump
4
Hard left progressives aren't the base of the Democratic party. Most everyday Democrats aren't reading Chomsky. I'm worried about healthcare and making a living.
Nancy Pelosi could worry less about the party discipline and more about message discipline. The press is running after the progressive shiny objects like AOC and it endangers the whole caucus. She can help outline broad brand proposals from the whole party, rather than just the Green New Deal, and publicize what the party platform actually is that every member can get behind. Then you know what it is that ALL Democrats represent, and the gradual versus aggressive tactics to get there are a matter of taste.
2
@ann...
You encapsulate the whole problem for the Democrats since the wipe-out in 2010...
What's the message...
The Green New Deal will not be a winner for them.
1
The problems, in order:
1) our two-party system
2) our two parties
1
Omar and Tlaib should stop focusing on AIPAC, and go after the real enemy - Trump and the Republicans in the House and Senate.
1
Organizing and growing the Democratic Party - LOCALLY - as advocated by Howard Dean, when party chairman, was not mentioned in this excellent analysis. Much more money from the Democratic Party must be invested in states and many towns and cities to combat the real difficulties the party faces . This effort will not only support local candidates but will communicate what the Democratic Party is doing and will do for their communities. The party's and its candidate's agenda in terms of health care, jobs, investment, the environment and education as well as addressing local problems will be communicated continuously against the Republican Party's servitude to billionaires and giant corporations . The party needs to have an agenda for communities, the uneasy electorate and the country that has lost its identity. Identify politics for the Democratic Party is ' the BIG TENT, the identity of the people, their needs and hopes; the identity of the places in which they live and the identity of the USA, its history; its values and its commitment to the people.
2
@F. McB...
Such a shame, is it not, that it has been identity politics that has gotten the Democrat, the liberal, and the progressive in the unfortunate in which they now find themselves politically.
They really need to come together and find a winning message or they will again lose the most important election in a decade...the one that determines which party has the power to set representative district lines.
1
@The Owl
We can own our identity together. It is not a matter of answering their smears; it's to be proud of our service to the people and to have Owls among us.
We were told to go along and get along and vote for Hil. Where did that get us? This time, no way.
32
@Cal Page
Maybe because not everybody got along or voted for "Hil" -- Oh, and by the way, you've forgotten voter suppression, the Electoral College and Russian interference.
That's what got us where we are in the end.
27
So cal you’re willing to split the party, rather than get along? Trump’ll love you. Words from the Revolution (I believe Franklin) “We must all hang together or we’ll hang separately!” If “progressives “ and frankly from where I stand all Dems, save, perhaps Manchin and Jones in the Senate, are progressives, but the left side of you wish want to have a share in power, they must be taught , gently, that it’s only possible when the party coalesces around ideas that the majority of voters accept. AOC and her ilk, must be convinced that moderate Congresspeople that can win are a heck of a lot better than “radicals” whose chances are lessened by the electorate they face.
PS: understand that any policy not in line with Trumpism will be called “socialist”. I know better because I was born in 1947 in Labour controlled Britain. Now there was socialism!
Nationalization of major industries, confiscatory taxation ( and we’re talking 90 % at the top)
Welfare State including the National Health Service etc.
In the movie Crocodile Dundee a NY punk has a knife and wants to rob Dundee. Dundee takes out his mammoth crocodile skinning knife and, waving it in front of the kid tells him;
“That’s not a knife son.! This here’s a real knife!” And the kid retreats.
So what even Bernie and AOC are offering is not Socialism “these are real socialists!” Pointing to the pre and I’m guessing much of Post-Blair’s New Labour! They would guffaw at the notion of Bernie the Socialist!
9
@Steve I fear that logic such as yours (which I agree with 100%) isn't going to be heard. It's starting to become pretty clear about what is coming for us. Four more years of Trump. Nothing will get out the vote more for Trump than the Bernie / AOC agenda. Free jobs! Free healthcare! Free college! It all sounds great. But who is paying for this? The math doesn't add up.
7
Rep. Pelosi has the chops for this and it's good for the party.
I'm glad the Democrats have a varied group with diverse ideas, unlike the GOP who are good little Trumpies and lobby cuddlers.
3
Adherents of Islam (namely, Palestinians) would use force to take Jerusalem if they could - but they can't. So what they've done instead is they've angled to take via political opinion what they cannot take via force.
2
The country is at a tipping point right now and we all know it. The President elected in 2020 will have at least one and probably 2 appointments to the Supreme Court IF all of the current members survive to that time. The entire progressive agenda FOR DECADES depends on the newly elected President being a Democrat and the Senate falling into Democratic hands. Then too, if any of the progressive agenda is to be passed, the house too must remain under Democratic control. If the progressives cannot bide their time and operate more quietly to achieve their ends, without threatening Democratic members in vulnerable districts, the damage of the last two and next two years will not be reversed in the lifetimes of most voters over the age of third or thirty five.
Reversing, too, income inequality, will never be achieved if Trump and the republican Senate caucus remains around. It's about 2020, stupid
1
Big changes in the economy: really fast adoption of technology in many sectors, the shift from making stuff to data handling, automation of low-skill jobs, the near collapse of bricks-and-mortar retailing, changes coming up soon in auto manufacturing , rethinking the whole energy sector--these are the cause of income inequality not business friendly=worker unfriendly government policy. The successes and the big fortunes made by innovators in these new areas are the result of first mover advantage, not unfair manipulation of the system or enmity to workers. Democrat ideas to slow down this transformation by heaping new costly social spending burdens on it are not progressive, they're actually fighting the trend, they're swimming against the tide, one way or another that strategy is a sure loser, not only for the Dems, but for the whole nation.
2
The Democratic Party needs to keep doors open on a big welcoming tent. Big, welcoming, messy. diverse, sometimes chaotic, just like American Democracy. Diverse not just in identities, but in perspectives, ideologies, and priorities. "Vote your district first" is excellent advice.
Do Democrats believe that voters in NYC, in Kansas, Pennsylvania, and Alabama all deserve representatives who will fight to represent their districts or states?
Pelosi has a hard job! She will manage. But, top down ordering doesn't seem like a wise way to be the "Democratic" Party.
2
Excellent article; this is the type of enlightenment that drives me to read the NYT.
To the dems, the message (to me, at least) is clear: do you want to be a 2-year house majority, or do you want to retain the majority for 4 or more years? Do you want to take the Senate? Ain't gonna happen if you become the party of AOC. The winning party, every election, overestimates its mandate. Slow down, dems. Make tangible progress. Show results. That builds an enduring legacy and a sustainable majority.
2
@Jim R.: Exactly. We're on the same page.
Excellent analysis. The straight ticket voting pattern seen now might also indicate confusion, or insufficient time and/or energy to analize each district candidate.
My friends eyes glaze over when I talk politics -- most peoples' do. So a straight black and white choice is often easier.
Voters can ask, "Am I Conservative or Liberal -- yes or no?" and vote accordingly. Or they can ask "Am I, or my family, better off, or seen no change, since the last election? " If they're worse off, votes might change. If not, they'll likely stay with the incumbent ticket.
The majority of the American electorate supports the majority of the Social Democrats values. They fear: the label of Social Democrat and higher taxes that won't benefit them.
The new green deal has the right idea, and Americans will have to pursue it sooner or later, to save our lives from climate change, and to prepare for a future of new jobs that robots will have replaced.
It will cost money to transit from fossil fuels to clean energy, to retrain people who have lost jobs to automation, to pay for decent universal health care and public education.
So the Democrats, in a sense, have a labeling problem, and the more difficult task of raising taxes so the U.S. can enjoy the benefits that Europeans do.
They must give a rock solid promise that taxes will only go to social safety net, education and environmental protection programs first -- not to corporate welfare.
1
Debate is essential but if the Democratic Party fragments because of moderate versus progressive strife then all is lost. The Republicans will do all that they can to promote the concept of a split among the liberals. First and foremost, Democrats must be unified to win in 2020. They can squabble afterwards
2
My question for the “moderates”—why, exactly, do you think that the people in your districts decided to back a Democrat? Because they want progressive change! These aren’t people that will support Trump through anything...they saw where the GOP was leading the country, and wanted something else. So instead of sitting on your hands or working with the GOP to pass their god awful legislation, try to come up with common sense middle of the road things that both the left and center can appreciate. Helping the GOP to remain in control despite being in the minority will not be rewarded! Remember that when we look at the House map next year and see how many of these Trump-district Dems are left...I’ll bet that it’s only those who made a name for themselves being a progressive stalwart rather than someone that aids and abets the GOP to maintain their hold on power.
Thomas Edsall told readers what Nancy Pelosi already knows: 1) the Democrats need to remain a big tent party, welcoming diverse opinions so long as they do not become a pale imitation of Trumpism and 2) that on procedural votes, as Pelosi indicated, party unity is essential. If centrist democrats become a suburban version of the Freedom Caucus, Trump will win.
To this ppint the Democratic party's new left is more willing to compromise for the sake of unity than the centrists. though you would't know from the press (Times included). If more time were available between a motion to recommit and the actual vote it would increase transparency and public discussion, allowing the majority's caucus more time to think about the consequences of their vote.
Mr. Edsall appears to have accepted the contention of Republicans and the insurance industry that Medicare For All (single payer) is some kind of crazy, hopelessly expensive idea that will turn American into a Stalinist gulag. Sure, it's a democratic socialist idea, as was part of FDR's New Deal but if it's appropriate for capitalist Japan's mixed health care system it will be OK for us. Remember, Medicare is not socialized medicine in which health care providers work for the state.
If moderates can't accept single payer, they are out of tune with the country which wants it. To get it may require a phased approach and retention of supplementary insurance. I believe the Democratic left will accept such compromises.
It is nice to see the democratic party implode. Keep up the good work. I am registered as a democrat, and registered when it was mostly centrist, but now detect the appalling dysfunction and hypocrisy associated with it. Its only current role is to disrupt government function.
3
Several European countries are governed by coalitions of smaller parties. It is in fact bizarre that a country as large and ideologically diverse as the US is still divided primarily into two parties, and that the Democratic Party remains one unit- maybe the exception rather than the rule. In countries such as Germany and the Netherlands, there are a variety of separate left-wing parties, with varying degrees of liberal bent, that run on distinct platforms, which in the case of the US are lumped into a single party. It is also intriguing to be reminded that what Americans consider to be 'moderate,' are what many Europeans would deem 'right.' What Americans would consider to be 'left' are what Europeans would deem 'moderate.' And so on.
1
I wish people like Edsall and Brooks would quit talking about Medicare for All as being "expensive," when, in fact, Medicare for All could save billions upon billions of dollars annually in net overall health care costs!
Parasitic private health insurers have totally overplayed their hand by giving the U.S. the most expensive health care of all the developed nations of the world. It is time to cut them out of the picture.
5
There is nothing wrong with floating things such as the NGD .. but everything that receives strong backing should reflect a generalized focus around the leadership. If you do not support the center, the center cannot hold.
2
So we are seeing the birth of the Democrats version of the tea party or should I say anti-tea party. The tea party shook up the Republicans but I don't think in good way as they ushered in trumpism. Let's hope the Democrats do a better job of reaching a consensus with the far left wing if the party than the Republicans who basically threw u their arms and relinquished control.
3
What amazes me in reading this article and the following posts is how conservative mainstream American culture and society is. In relation to much of the developed world, it lives in a vacuum of anitquated and backward ideas; exceptionalism, overt individualism and unregulated capitalism, etc.
I study another country which is big and backwards and that is Russia. Every day, I have to ask myself which is the most backward nation, the Russians or the Americans? How sad!
90
@Barry Lane,
This native-born U.S. citizen in my 60's agrees with you wholeheartedly. Thank you for speaking out. Please let our northern neighbors know that the majority of us detest Trump and the Republicans, but we are, at least currently, powerless to halt the damage they are causing to our country and to the world.
7
@Barry Lane
No offense, but this patronizing tone from our neighbors to the North is starting to nerve.
If only because you're making the grave mistake of thinking that the majority of Americans voted for the person currently sitting in the White House.
Here's an idea.
Do more research. This is a big and diverse country that in no way resembles Russia. Think not?
Then go there and see for yourself.
8
@Barry Lane so agree with you...
3
As a matter of vocabulary, it's time we stopped calling Democrats who embrace FDR's and JFK's values "left" or even "far left." Supporting medicare for all, a living minimum wage and conversion to green energy are hardly extremist positions; the majority of the electorate want these things. Please, let us not forget that Hillary Clinton's so-called centrism - actually right wing pro-big bank, pro-big pharma and pro-big military - led Democrats to lose a slam dunk election to a moronic, psychiatrically impaired reality television personality.
4
Three points:
1. If the left wing of the Dems can mobilize new voters, swing voters in these white, middle class districts will have less power.
2. If whatever remains of the middle class continues to vote as if its standard of living can be preserved apart from improvements in our environment, in our health care system, in the viability of substantial retirement programs, in public education, and in family income, then America will reap what it sows: an ever wealthier and more entrenched oligarchy built on the racial frustrations of people who believe they can prosper while non-white folks scrounge to keep their lives together. The white middle class will become more and more pathetic, self-pitying, and stupid.
3. Ergo, either moderates turn left or they become politically irrelevant (because their leaders will not implement policies that address moderates' problems), frustrated, and dangerous to themselves and everyone else.
Moderation in the defense of a declining standard of living is no virtue; New Deal Democracy in the defense of common sense is no vice.
1
@Pecus...
Moderates are never irrelevant as it is the moderate that provides the vote for the winners.
Neither the left or the right is strong enough on its own to secure wins on a national scale.
3
"...progressive Democrats who adamantly oppose reporting undocumented(i.e. illegal)immigrants to authorities". And here is why after 40 years I am leaving the democratic party. What happened to Barbara Jordan's 1992 democratic party ?
3
There is no way the Midwest will vote for a socialist liberal. Independents make up 40% of the electorate and they are usually swing voters who are more in the middle and not ultra left or right. If the democrats are dumb enough to elect a far left liberal they will not win. Pelosi comes from liberal San Francisco but she is smart enough to know her constituents don't make up the majority of the United States
3
No worries. If it’s a problem, Nancy Pelosi can successfully deal with it. Seriously.
1
As Seth Meyer would say "In my day" the Democratic Party had conservatives and committed liberals in the Democratic party and in most areas they were able to move legislation and keep the party from totally fracturing. But in my day there were also liberal Republicans to assist in passing liberal bills but they have gone the way of the Dodo. The problem is that the Republican party in the first time in its history is not only a hard right party but one that is organized more like a parliamentary party with absolute discipline while the Democratic Party, like the traditional historical parties has more factions. Part of the solution is to gain even larger majorities so a moderate waiver would not effect the final result of legislation just the final vote total.
3
"Liberals still have to be reminded there are not enough liberals out there to form a majority." Word. No majority, no governance. No governance, no policy initiatives. Invoking the Choir Invisible ("millions of Americans know") isn't going to change the math.
4
The major problem facing the Dems is billionaire patronage. Even though the billionaires backing the Dems are not as nutsy as those backing the GOP and Fox News, they still do inhibit the Dems and impede necessary reforms to address obvious problems: wages, environment, global warming, health care, opioids, affordable housing, infrastructure, education, child & elder care ...
Bh focusing upon pablum issues that won’t upset their patrons, the Dems become a milquetoast party that will not gain the Senate in 2020.
3
Those of us who are admittedly older Democratic voters tend to look for logic in the actions of our elected Senators and Representatives. We also expect a member of the House of Representatives to win her or his spurs, before rebelling against the Speaker.
The foolish immaturity of elected members whose only achievement has been to win a single election in her or his district must not be allowed to derail the great work of Speaker Pelosi.
8
@sdw
I whole-heartedly agree. The newbies need to sit down, shut up, listen, and learn.
2
Well, Pelosi with her center-right economic policies and adherence to the corporate class to secure DNC funding has plenty to worry about there being a split. But of course she and her corporate backed cohort are completely ignorant of the growing mass of citizens, mostly made up of youths, who will force the split by clamoring to a new and honest political party that actually supports the working class and the poor.
2
"Centrists" on both right and left, republican and democrat, should get together and form a new party based on reason and need. The current parties are a disaster, and their continuation as is will further destroy the country. It's sad to look over what's happening and finding that the only "leader" in the current mix is already in the white house.
2
There are a load of problems with the USA that have no overtones of anti-anything. Affordable housing, environment, global warming, economic inequality, infrastructure, child & elder care, education, health care ... They are well known. They need fixing. The Republicans will veto any proposal to fix them. Trump is doing nothing.
The major problem for the Dems and Republicans both is billionaire patronage. That limits their oomph in addressing real problems. The GOP is worse off than the Dems because they have chosen the patronage of a group of really rabid bonkers billionaires to support.
Hopefully, the Dems will wake up that “stronger together” is a great slogan, but gets them no closer to a program to put things right.
1
Give the American people and option besides more republicanism.
A choice between REPUBLICAN HEAVY and REPUBLICAN LITE is no choice at all.
Convey the liberal message (finally) or go down with the GOP. Enough is enough of getting ripped off by the wealthy.
3
The essence of the Democratic Party" problem" is in the last paragraph of the article.
Unlike the Republican Party the Democratic Party is very gender, color aka race, ethnicity, national origin, socioeconomic, political and educationally diverse. There are no Jewish nor Muslim Republicans in Congress. Only two Republicans in Congress are black. One in the House and one in the Senate.Most females in Congress are Democrats. As are openly LGBTQ. Most Hispanic Latinos in Congress are Democrats.
While the Republican Party is the reigning conservative partisan political right-wing favorite of the white Europeam Christian American majority.
The Republicans believe in tax credits, tax cuts, tax deductions and lower tax rates for certain industries, transactions, sources of income, business entity structures,contracts and securities favored by special interest lobbyists. They call that "capitalism".
The Republicans believe that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid along with any government program that provides financial. food or housing aid to individuals is " socialism".
The other " problem" is that America is not nor was it ever meant to be a democracy.
America is a divided limited different power constitutional republic of united states. That is why Al Gore and Hillary Clinton were not President. And why a half million people from Wyoming have as many Senators as 39.5 million Californians. Why judges are appointed for life by an Electoral College President and a Senate.
4
@Blackmamba
You hit the nail on the head, as you always do.
1
"She owes her majority to the moderates who won Republican seats, but she is in no position to ignore the energy coming from her left."
Nonsense. EVERY ONE OF THOSE DEMOCRATS is part of the majority. The moderates and progressives together make the Democratic majority.
The way Mr Edsall frames it, it is as though moderate views should rule because they "won" the majority.
That is a false construction, and pretty silly.
Democrats need to agree among themselves what policies they can push with unity. Those will likely have both moderate and progressive elements. Let's move forward fully unified
2
I think the Democrats are on the road to Corbynization and I doubt Pelosi can stop them. It may, or may not, work for them in the long run. But for the foreseeable future it's a disaster.
1
Pelosi & the Dems are in danger of losing the plot & 2020. This was a gun-control issue as well as an immigration issue. When polled over 90% of Americans want some stricter form of gun control. I'm not sure what the exact numbers are, but a majority of Americans also want to curb illegal immigration, emphasis on 'illegal.' I've long admired Pelosi as someone who was pragmatic & knew how to control her caucus. Is she losing her grip as she ages, or has she fallen victim to Trump derangement syndrome? The far left in her party are garnering most of the attention these days, but not necessarily in ways that will translate into a big win in 2020. Universal health care & green dreams without a clue as to how they'll be funded, topped off with the cherry of anti-Semitism, not a good look for the Dems. They need to wake up fast.
2
Not all Americans have acquiesced to rule by political party. The Constitution assign political parties no role in government. There are more Americans without political party affiliation than there are Republicans or Democrats.
In his farewell address, George Washington warned America against political parties. He said: “I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. “
1
My father was a skeptic and I find it impossible to be a believer. I consider myself a conservative and a centrist and someone who wishes to save our civilization. My conservatism puts me about where Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is politically which is somewhere to the left of Bernie Sanders.
I live in a fact based universe where God's Laws prevent miracles and wonders from interfering with the order of the universe.
I don't understand Democrats and Republicans my logic informs me when your economy is not sustainable the solution is not making it grow faster. When your nation has been torn apart the answer is not tear into even smaller pieces. When your citizens are fearful and angry you don't make them more fearful and angrier. I kind of feel like the Abraham character of the old testament after Sodom and Gomorrah had exhausted all possibility of redemption; Enough Already!
The middle of madness is still madness.
2
In other words, the Democrats are slowly but inexorably remaking themselves in the image of Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party: antisemitic, cultish, ideologically driven, radical and unacceptable to moderate and centrist voters. The UK is going under as the result of Brexit but the alternative presented by Corbyn is worse than the status quo. Unless the Democrats wake up and nominate a sane centrist candidate, the US will find itself in the same situation: between the rock of Trump and the hard place of democratic socialism. I won’t vote for a socialist under any circumstances, no more than I’d have voted for antisemitic Corbyn. I am not alone.
3
"The motion — passed with the support of the 26 Democratic defectors who infuriated Pelosi — amended the legislation to require notification of Immigration and Customs Enforcement when an undocumented immigrant fails a background check."
Democrats need to understand that we certainly don't want anyone at all who is living in this country illegally to purchase weapons. Pelosi's objections don't make any sense at all.
Please bring us back to the Democratic Party of FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ.
Instead of:
1. Allowing people living here illegally to purchase weapons.
2. Anti-semitism.
3. Blocking job creation in NYC with 25,000 jobs paying $150,000 per year, $24 billion in net tax revenues, and 11,000 *union* construction jobs.
4. Allowing biological men to use restrooms and showers intended for biological women.
Do this:
1. Affordable housing.
2. Affordable public university tuition.
3. Mental health funding for those in jails, for the poor throughout the country.
4. Mental health parity. Insurance companies pay so little for mental health that almost no psychologist or psychiatrist in NYC takes insurance. Insurance should be required to pay for mental health, not only medical health.
Trump won not because of Comey, Russians, mysoginy, or the electoral college but because they had a bad candidate and they have bad policy.
Democrats need to put the needs of Americans *ahead* of those living here illegally.
Otherwise we'll see Trump win 2020.
3
You know what's absolutely ridiculous about this piece? It fails to recognize that the left wants to break with party leadership at least as often, if not more often, than the right (labeled "moderate" here). It's just assumed that the left won't. Very weak piece. If all politics is national today, then the local electorates know what they've elected. As Tom Mann said, “Republicans will always attack them as liberals however they vote on these gotcha procedural motions.” That being the case, what is the point of this piece? It reads like an apologia to conservative Dem votes against leadership. It's basically Third Way propaganda.
1
We should be asking will the corrupt, paid off, corporate, "sitting on the phone 6 hours a day for donations from rich people" democrats hurt the brand!!! Will the millionaires in the party taint these new progressives. Maybe if instead of running corporate shills the democrats ran some FDR types promising the better the lives of people in the Midwest, like Trump did, they'd win. Let us not socialism took hold in the midwest before, AND Bernie Sanders won there by YUGE margins. Stop trying to win Texas and Georgia, try to win back Michigan and PA. Bernie could carry those states easily.
2
The GOP/Fox News Axis has weaponized politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib. Underesitimate the power, effectiveness and determination of Right Wing media at your own risk. Fox News' relentless focus on these Democratic politicians has one goal: to make these women the new (socialist)face of the Democratic Party. With this rebranding, in 2020 centrist House Democrats in swing districts are defeated, the GOP regains the House and Trump is reelected. And the Democratic Party once again snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.
3
Democrats, with a few notable exceptions, have a hard time remembering that the first job is to win the election. The Party abounds with people who would rather be right than president; you can have some of those, but not everybody. Since the Party represents a much wider range of interests than Republicans do, there are bound to be squabbles, and as another comment writer noted, the press loves to amplify those. Democrats should spend more time telling the American people how badly Republicans have abused the majority looking out for rich people. Then they need to pass legislation in the House that most Americans would support, and let Republicans block their popular measures. They could have policy discussions civilly among themselves. Agreement is not required. Each congressman can tailor his or her appeal to their different districts and states, but then hopefully, the Party would come up with an electable moderate to run for president.
The Speaker doesn’t have to worry about anything, not related to Trump. She’s got this. Period.
The "energy" coming from the left could result in Pence remaining as President. Trump will be long gone by then by either impeachment or resignation.
Now is not the time.for the far left to scream for the many social programs they are calling for. Instead they should focus on three things.
1. Revert income tax rates to 1968 levels. ... lstrn.us/2bulepy
2. Reverse Citizens United
3. Prohibit gerrymandering.
If the left decides to go full bore socialist they will lose everything.
3
Dems should run on policies that have overwhelming support across the spectrum: expanding access to health care; expanding social security as a way to address people who are left behind in the labor market; higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations; gun purchase background checks; and increasing access to home ownership.
As I mentioned in the comments to Ms. Cochrane's article, Nephi is not a suburb of Salt Lake City. Would you consider Trenton a suburb of New York? Nephi is farther away from Salt Lake City than Trenton is to New York. Ben McAdams shouldn't properly represent the people of Nephi at all. His constituency there is a direct result of gerrymandering.
".....the agony of the moderate wing....."?
Give me a break. Today's (Democratic) moderate wing is yesterday's Republican Party. The Dems need to go back to their pre-DLC/Al From roots, before the progressive wing was drowned out. There's room in the Democratic coalition for progressives and moderates; if the latter want things their own way, their self-inflicted "agony" will continue.
I am still not that fired up about Ms. Pelosis but she is correct these folks need to decide which side they are on. They ran with a D by their names and they will lose with a D by their names when the Republicans come after them.
However, the law itself reporting undocumented folks buying guns to ICE is not bad IMO. ICE is justly Demonised by the left but in this case, the left is not correct buying a gun is a serious step.
2
@GladF7
Thank you for this comment. I do agree quite alot with what you wrote. Let's hope those Dem Congressmembers read your comment and get the message.
The lefties like Ilhan, Omar, and Octavio Cortes are a godsend to the Republicans.
With the albatross of Trump they were certain to go down to massive defeat in 2020.
Now the equation is totally changed.
Divide and conquer.
Thank you, God, there is a Santa Claus, they must be saying.
Once again the Dems are shooting themselves in the foot.
As a progressive who supports Israel and the Jewish homeland, I wouldn't vote for anti-Semitic politicians and neither will most Americans who refuse to be held hostage to a tiny group of people who yell politically correct and tell us how Socialism will save the world.
Sorry, it doesn't work for most of us.
7
This life long (67 years) Democrat sees many of the so called Democratic centrist Representatives as nothing more than Republican-light. Still beholden to corporations that maintain a system that thwarts climate change action, prevents true health insurance reform, and oversees a vanishing middle class.
The last Democratic presidential primary should have been a wake up call. This new “red scare” of socialism is baloney. School funding is socialism. Highway funding is socialism. Urban renewal funding is socialism. It is baked in to our Democratic system and we are all better off for it.
5
Thomas B, Edsall, like David Brooks, is another voice of reason and sanity in the New York Times op-ed section. After reading this op-ed, I now welcome the Radical Left led by AOC, especially if it results in splitting the Democrat Party between the moderates and radical left. Not everyone in America is on board with the Radical Left's agenda of sweeping pie-in-the-sky freebies at the expense of hard-working Americans who pony up each year to the IRS.
However, if you read the comments to the New York Times op-eds and other articles, you would think that everyone is on board with them. I know that my voice is that of the silent majority. That's why is good to look for news and opinion from other sources. At any rate, thank you Mr. Edsal for your clear-headed and thought-provoking perspective. It keeps the Left honest (if that is at all possible). Cheers!
2
If you welcome AOC because you think she's going to be unpopular, you are in for a wild ride.
2
‘I don’t know where the Democratic Party will go’
Truer words were never spoken.
Some years back the GOP took the ‘energy’ of the Tea Party to win elections, and drove themselves into a hole, gave us Sara Palin, then they lost 2 presidential elections in a row and gave raise to the Trump and Hillary comedy hour.
Fast forward to now, the DNC took the ‘energy’ of the Socialist and Progresives, and drove them selves into a corner, this gave us Alexandria Occasion-Cortez and you are sure to loose 2020 to Trump big time and in 2024 your prospects do not look good either.
I understand politicians are elected by the mob mentality, and if the issue d’jour is ‘free money for those who refuse to work’, then any politician will ride that to the bank, and we all hope they do their usual and forget their campaign promises soon as elected.
But all is not lost.
Nanci Pelosi has survived before.
She will, hopefully, find a way to rid us all of the Progresives, Socialists, Anti-Semites and right the party good enough to mount a fight in 2024.
Once can only hope.
2
Please, mainstream media:
What is so far left about universal healthcare?;
What is so far left about easing the burden of student loan debt?
What is so far left about promulgating a policy or policies to get some rational balance to the wealth and income gap?
What is so far left about taking real action about the human impact on global warming, including rejoining the Paris climate accords?
What is so far left about mandating a living minimum wage?
You -mainstream media - are so entrenched in your elite lifestyle that you have no idea what Americans want from their government, and which we're willing to pay for.
I expect nonsense from Fox and Trump.
But your lockstep reaction to young, vibrant people who are beginning to take power feeds into the right wing trope that sees anything that benefits the common good as communism revisited.
You helped give our republic the kakistocracy that is the Trump administration with your false equivalencies in 2016.
You're not fake news, but you are pseudo democrats.
2
@mikekev56
Exactly! The MSM hasn't figured out yet that the center is now where the fringe left (think Kucinich, Nader, et. al...) was 20 years ago.
They're very fond of breathlessly reporting all the new polling about how American voters feel about this 'liberal' policy or that on a weekly basis, yet when they report that, say, 70% of voters favor a single payer health plan, or raising the federal minimum wage to $15/hr., or that 80% favor raising tax rates on the wealthy and corporations, they still insist on calling politicians who support those issues as being 'far left'.
Newsflash! If 80%(!) of voters support something that means that it's no longer a 'liberal' idea, it's mainstream!
1
@mikekev56
What is so far left?
Simple, those of us dumb enough to still believe that hard work will earn a paycheck, will get milked even drier to pay for all the free stuff promised by AOC and her cohorts.
She wants an income for those who refuse to work.
That's really unfair for those of us who get up early in the AM, leave the family all day and get home tired and get robbed by the IRS to pay for this.
If you cannot see this, then please educate yourself, as you will be taking home even less money now that your Liberal heroes have your ok to pick your pocket even deeper now.
1
@AutumnLeaf
Don't tell me that you still fall for the same old GOP trope of 'Uh oh, the Dems are coming, hold onto your wallet!" Really?
What I do know is that the lower the taxes on the wealthy have gotten, the more my own income has gone down. Trickle down much?
Amy Klobuchar was the Heartland / coastal answer to all the infighting.
Amy as president would be logical with all the other excellent democrats running, in her cabinet.
Pelosi and AOC could work with Klobuchar.
Pragmatism and logic and cool calculated negotiations.
Then rebuilding the Mellenial Middle Class with a 30 dollar an hour minimum wage !
We have now watched congress argue for a decade over $15 minimum
Wage!!!!
While mulling that .... the economy got worse thanks to trump. And mellenials future is in shatters.
It is ok. Remember Boomers !!!
We used to be brave.
Be brave again! The Mellenials need ya in their corner.
1
Mr. Edsall is right. Democrats ignore the Left at their peril. Since Bill Clinton, the Dems have done nothing but move closer and closer to the center. To reach out to Republicans. And in turn, did Republicans meet them in the spirit of compromise? Absolutely not. Republicans have done nothing but move farther and farther to the right. And their voters have rewarded them for it.
President Obama tried to reach out to Republicans during his first two years of office, even when his own party controlled Congress. He got nothing but a political kick in the teeth from Republicans. Then the Democrats ran a centrist, Hillary Clinton, who was clearly the most experienced candidate running for office. She lost to the most unfit candidate ever to assume the presidency.
Moving to the right has gotten us nothing but skyrocketing hate crimes, a "president" who says that the KKK and neo-Nazis are some very fine people, a "president" who takes his orders from Putin, and a Supreme Court whose opinions will create a Republic of Gilead where a secular democracy once thrived.
The fact is, our "Left" represents mainstream social and political policy in intelligent, forward-thinking nations. We're proud of our beliefs.
By contrast, there are no "moderate" Trump voters. Democrats, walk away from them. They'll never vote for you.
It's time to tack hard left. The only way for Dems to win is to answer to us, your base. And we're tired of wasting our votes on centrists who have given us nothing.
88
@Nicholas Rush
I agree that the Party ignores the Left at its peril. On the other hand the Socialists elected by Demorcratic voters ignore the far larger Center Left at their peril. Swagger and pro-Islamist bluster will only carry them so far. Even the British Labour leaders have had to backtrack in the face of the party majority. These guys seem to be trying very hard to re-elect Trump.
18
@Nicholas Rush Tried that - McGovern in 72 and Mondale in 84. See how that worked out for you. There's nothing to be learned from a second kick in the head from a mule.
14
@Nicholas Rush
The article is pretty clear that centrists are the reason the Democrats have a House majority. We'll need even more to get a Senate majority. Those who want to tack hard left are secretly wishing for a future where a self-righteous permanent Democratic minority scolds from the sidelines as the Republican party shapes the future of the country.
28
Keeping the plutocracy alive I see.
1
When it comes to values I think the Democrats are united. They believe in a secular society and the values that our Founding Fathers adopted from the enlightenment. I believe the far right of the Republican Party has different values. The split for Democrats is mainly on economics. Some Democrats strongly support capitalism while some lean more toward socialist solutions to problems. And some want to keep taxes down to win elections while others think taxes need to be raised to support social programs. And there is also a split on foreign policy. Some Democrats support an aggressive foreign policy with a strong military such as we have now while others see the the US as an imperialist empire and want to dramatically cut military spending and use the money for social programs. Views on Israel are also divisive. Some Democrats are very strong supporters of Israel and do not sympathize very much with the plight of the Palestinians while others are focused more on helping the Palestinians obtain their own independent state and criticize Israel for its continued occupation of the West Bank and carrying out a partial blockade of Gaza. I think the Democrats need to focus on what they agree on and deal the reality that they will continue to have sharp disagreements in various areas. I don't think a completely progressive party, which seems to now be a goal of many on the left, is realistic.
2
@Bob
This is an excellent analysis of the Democratic Party as of right now. Very clear and concise.
Since progressives will flip no seats, they must determine the agenda. Centrists should be cursed as Republicans. Good way to preserve a majority.
5
@Clinton Davidson -- I'm afraid sarcasm is as lost on Bernie-bros as it is on Trump supporters.
1
Never underestimate the ability of the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
8
I am glad to se that "anti Semitism" is in quotes.
There is nothing anti Semitic about criticizing Israel, which is a foreign country. That is what Ilhan Omar did, and which more Congresspeople should. It is the most pro Israel thing to do.
Preventing criticism of Israel ironically validates the key point that the the Israel lobby runs Congress.
5
@Baddy Kahn If Rep. Omar had stuck to just criticizing Israel then she might not be in the mess she’s in.
1
Correction: She owes her majority to Trump, one of the most unpopular Presidents ever. And she would have an even bigger majority if only the Democrats had moved to the Left instead of to the moderate Republican Lite center.
10
@G.Janeiro This actually is untrue. Democrats only won the house thanks to moderates taking Republican districts.
18
@John It’s easy to take districts from an unpopular President. But the Democrats underachieved by moving to the moderate Republican Lite center.
1
That is factually incorrect. The vast majority of congressional “flips” from Republican to Democrat took place in center-right leaning districts.
7
Incredible that the GOP is openly flirting with white supremacists and xenophobia, as the media is hand wringing over the question of the Democratic Party giving a long overdue seat at the table to progressivism.
1
Interesting inside baseball article, but really folks, how can anyone not support reporting an illegal alien to ICE if they fail a background check trying to buy a gun? Even more, how can anyone not support reporting any and all discovered illegal aliens to ICE for deportation? This is an example of how common sense has been obliterated by left wing politics.
7
@DRS -- have you ever looked at the 4473 form? If not, please look here:
https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download
look at line k: "Are you an illegal alien?"
How many illegal aliens do you think are stupid enough to hand in a form with this line checked "yes?" They won't get a gun, duh.
If they check "no" that is a crime already punishable by up to 10 years jail, followed by deportation.
This whole thing was pure Republican 'gotcha' posturing.
Let me see if I've got this right. The democrats must condemn any hint of anti-semitism, but ignore the blatant anti-muslim coming from the right. Sounds fair to me.
4
"They see their progressive colleagues shaping an image of a Democratic House leaning so far to the left that it endangers the future of the current House majority."
Really? All the comments to this effect in the NYT sound to me like the clear indication the authors have no clue to what socialism is and use a it as a code term to imply communism, which is still ingrained in the American soul as the evil.
Time to wake up to reaslity, my Friends!
1
As long as the House Dems have members like Tlaib and Omar who make anti-semitic statements and Pelosi fails to comtrol them of punish them, they will be campaign fodder in 2020.
The Dems should primary them and make sure that they lose otherwise the whole party in the minds of many will be associated with these women.
5
@judyweller
Criticizing Israeli government policy is not 'anti-semitic', no matter how GOP-TV and and the trump-unditry try to spin it.
1
Party unity aside, undocumented immigrants should not be allowed to buy guns for any reason, and reporting such attempts to law enforcement authorities is a reasonable amendment. Getting into a party splitting fight over it just because it's a Republican idea is really stupid and does a real disservice to the Democratic brand. Call it bipartisanship and move on.
11
If these "new" Democrats continue to be seen (right or wrong) as socialists and anti-Semitic, the Democrats have zero chance of winning in 2020 or holding the House.
9
The very point, and function, of house representatives is to represent their district and constituents. The were NOT elected to represent Pelosi.
52
@jaco Pepsi is somewhat more like the moderates but she is trying to hold a coalition together. It’s the AOCs of congress that expect unwaivering support for all ultra progressive policies. That wing will fracture the Democratic Party.
20
I think the AOCs want to be heard, and not brushed off. The electorate is demanding an end to mossback politics.
7
@jaco
Took the words right out of my mouth and beat me to it by 6 minutes. Curses.
4
After voting for Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, and Hillary, the ascendance of the 20 and 30 yr old leftwing version of the know nothings means this moderate will have to say goodbye to the Democratic Party. If DJT is re-elected, it will be because the Democratic Party nominated Sen Sanders or Sen Warren or some other shill for AOC, having been pulled even more leftward. Bottom line is that the last of the boomers raised permanent children.
8
@czb I have been struck by how few of today's trendy/lefty Dems have raised families, or have held positions of real responsibility during their lives. This bothers me. Michael Bloomberg spent most of his life in positions of responsibility, and so did Biden, but Bloomberg is out now, and Biden probably will fall by the wayside, leaving the field to people who have never paid ANY dues in life.
What’s the point of electing moderates or centrists? They’ve done little or nothing to address gross inequality, gun violence, drug prices, wars of choice, corporate tax evasion, climate change, stagnant wages, trade deals that offshore jobs, abuse of tech sector visas, surveillance state, data privacy, antitrust violations, access to primary care, student loan debt, infrastructure, regulatory capture, the corrupt swing doors to private sector, campaign finance, national debt, military spending and education funding.
Time to elect legislators that work for the priorities of constituents instead of rich donors. The rich want the status quo, and shower money on corrupt careerists to achieve this. The new wave of progressives reject special interest financing, taking only small individual donations, and want to deliver change. The current trajectory is wrong, unjust, destabilizing and harms the planet. The stakes are too high to revert to business as usual.
81
@Xoxarle If you assume that all or most congressional districts can be won by progressives then you are naive. Moderate Democrats are the only Democrats that can win Republican leaning districts.
26
@Xoxarle WELL SAID!!!
4
@Xoxarle -- your proposition is a "bell the cat" one. If you do not know this fable of Aesop's see here:
https://fablesofaesop.com/belling-the-cat.html
"Time to elect..." the legislators in congress are the ones who will be there till 2020. What will get done will be done by these legislators.
In 2020 there will be an election ... is that "your time to elect?" So you mean to accept getting nothing at all until then so you can THEN get the legislators you desire? And you will universally accomplish that how?
10
Spot on.
What ever you political philosophy is, progressive or moderate, I believe that all democrats would agree on one thing... that being that Trumps' reign ends in 2020! It's not that I don't like what the progressives aspire to but would hope they keep in mind the following ... evolution versus revolution.
4
Democrats have a few million progressive, left of the center activists, who, if given disproportionate power, are likely to be very harmful for 2020 and beyond.
America is a centrist and a moderate country. Republican right works for many more people because they use emotions and fear mongering effectively. Also, they use tactics that young Democrats wouldn't employ for them selves. Conversely, the progressives use causes that are principles but create resentment among millions. Extreme political correctness and identity politics drive people on the main street away from Democrats.
It's better to be effective and win than be emotional and lose. Losers can't do much for the people they are fighting for.
7
This seems to be an issue of strategy over policy. The in-your-face nature of AOC and some of the other new members put a hard edge on what is generally good policy. It's not that people are necessarily opposed to say expanding Medicare or a Green New Deal. But the way AOC and other progressives talk about those make it difficult to sell in swing districts.
Investment in green energy and energy infrastructure is broadly popular. But when you talk about it in terms of wanting to destroy the fossil fuel industry and add in a bunch of social justice issues then you lose people in the middle. Same with Medicare for All. The goal should be universal, quality and affordable health care. But too often it seems that the goal is to destroy private insurance and pharmaceutical industries. It also seems that orthodoxy is outweighing pragmatism. Sometimes you need to take additional time to reach a goal. But that doesn't seem to be acceptable.
7
Thank you Mr.Edsall for another fine piece.A great example of a progressive losing was in Bucks county Pa.A suburb of Philadelphia.A republican Brian Fitzpatrick defeated Henry Scott Wallace.Mr Wallace’s far left progressive views were enough to turn moderate Democrats to vote for Mr.Fitzpatrick.The echo chamber of progressives in believing that moderates like myself would vote for progressives with the smell of antisemitism,the lack of compromise on healthcare,for example a German style system or Medicare at 50 is Pollyanna at best and arrogant at worst.In my own district I voted for Susan Wild in the primary and the general election.If Greg Edwards the progressive would have won the primary,reluctantly I would had voted Republican.As people grow older for the most part there views moderate.The progressives would be well served to moderate there views or we may see four more years of Trump.
8
McAdams, for one, is a DINO. He voted more towards Republican than Democratic.
These are the politicians who want to turn the Democratic party into the new moderate Republican party because their party has gone off the rails.
The problem is, if the moderate conservatives take over the Democratic party, where does that leave Democrats who don't want to be a moderately conservative party?
Moderate Republicans should be working to fix the problems with their party, not trying to shove Democrats out of theirs.
2
I heard Democratic moderates dismissed as "unicorns" not to be taken seriously or worthy of pursuit by a young commenter on MSNBC the other night. As I heard him, I watched myself being written off as nonexistent.
I can tell you there are PLENTY of moderates in this party, and if the party swings too far to its left fringe not only will the party lose independents in 2020, they will also lose us. I don't consider anyone using the tag Democratic socialist to be an actual Democrat, and I won't support a single one of them.
If Pelosi and other established party leaders dosn't play this well, 2020 could be another spectacle of Democrats snatching a loss from the jaws of victory.
13
@Cordelia So Trump is more moderate to you?
1
The probability of the 2020 election resulting in a change in the tax code reversing the massive shift in the in the tax burden away from the rich and onto the middle class is low as long as the Democrats continue to combine such tax proposals with plans to spend the proceeds. However, a plan to raise taxes on those with assets above $50 million and/or incomes above $10 million and use all of the proceeds to reduce the taxes on everyone else might have a much higher probability of being enacted.
It is hard to envision the Democrats being politically savvy or ideologically flexible enough to embrace a policy of directly shifting the tax burden away from the middle class and onto the rich. The Democrats have generally been deluded in their belief that the current level of taxes on the middle class is politically sustainable. In Hilary Clinton's speech announcing her candidacy, she said that the middle class pays too much taxes. She never mentioned a middle class tax cut again. Presumably due to pressure from Sanders, who pushed her to the left, which hurt her.
Most Democrats are not aware that by far the best thing government could do for most middle-class households would be to lower their taxes. Thus, in many cases, middle-class voters have been willing to grasp at any chance they think could lower their tax burden, and thus support candidates who promise them a tax cut, no matter how odious the candidates might be otherwise..."
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4243751
1
@Lance Brofman
You can't have a laundry list of free stuff and expect someone else to pay for it. Taxes would definitely go up. For everybody.
1
"Wonkish" but essential. I only hope the resurgent Democratic Party leadership, split as it is, can unite behind the reality that driving too fast can lead to skids into guardrails, sometimes with tragic consequences. Perspicacity is a big word, but what it means should be urged in digestible ways to all who wish to see the Democratic Party protect its recent gains. Tragic consequences wil result if Democratic hardliners on either side cannot come together and appeal to us all.
1
Would love to know who is financing these people.
There is no way I'm going to believe the person driving the trucks and vehicles used during this long trip are doing so on their dimes seeing how on an episode on Vice News one of the drivers said they were leaving from Mexico to go back and bring even more people.
That's over 1000 miles back and forth.
Who pays if there are mechanical needs that have to be addressed.
And looking at that episode on Vice News, they had a way to feed the group even stopping to cook a huge pot of something for them to eat and water supplies
And of all the administrations, why during the Trump era, of all Administrations, would so many people be traveling north now, especially with an American president showing so much contempt for immigrants/migrants?
Trump tried to insinuate the DEMS for this action several months back.
I say look to from whence that finger is coming from.
Something is very fishy here.
It's not beneath Trump and his wealthy sycophants to created a problem so 'he', Trump, can claim 'I fixed it'.
1
The current split of Democrats is the fault of the "moderates" like the Third Way group quoted here. Their third way is to pretend to be moderate Republicans while running as Democrats. This keeps actual Democrats out of office, leaving no space for them.
This split was magnified instead of healed in 2016. Traditionally, at the end of a primary fight, the factional leaders reach out for unity. Instead, Ms. Third Way spurned her own party in hopes of outreach to moderate Republicans. Her team was openly insulting, and flatly refused even token concessions.
Trying to be Republican-Lite didn't work. Instead, it got rebellion, defeat for Hillary, and then even AOC herself ousting the number three Democrat in the House in a primary fight.
What about those swing districts? That problem too is the fault of the "moderate" Democrats.
The very day after the election, the Hillary Team of Third Way Democrats began the drive to maintain control of the party and donors despite the loss. It was done by an attack that nationalized politics far more than before.
The effort to blame everybody but themselves led these moderates to turn politics into a food fight. That of course nationalized. "We was robbed" is a sure way to start the biggest possible fight.
That is why politics became so nationalized just this Congress, compared to normal. It is what they did themselves.
An inclusive drive to help all voters could have reached suburban voters without nationalizing extreme partisanship.
2
According to this article, the Democrats are in internal conflict due to their heterogeneous base of voters and inability to coalesce around a winning set of principles. Unlike the Republicans with a homogeneous base and a consistent set of principles. Yet, all one sees in the media is that both parties are focusing on extreme issues that do not represent the desires of their constituents.
Both parties are forcing all of their members to vote in lock step for positions that are not acceptable to many of their local voters. We do not (yet) live under a parliamentary system in which the voters could pick & choose among many parties depending upon their personal predilections. We have just two large "big-tent" parties inclusive of many voters with different beliefs. This is why we have had such a stable government over our history. This is not the time to splinter the parties asunder depending on their ideological quirks. Nor is it the time for either party to adopt the agenda of the extreme minority.
2
Pelosi's "my way or the highway" style of leadership will make it much, much easier for Republicans to pin the unpopular Pelosi to democrat candidates. A vote for a democrat house member is essentially a vote for Pelosi.
@jaco Why do you persist in trying to forward false narratives?
Pelosi has weathered all the false narratives the right has tried to smear her with.
It is almost as if you can't resist spitting into the wind.
1
I am a progressive pragmatist. The new young progressive Democrats in the House must learn to choose their battles otherwise important progressive Democratic policy proposals will suffer.
The Republican amendment to the gun control bill was relatively meaningless. First, it is very likely that few, if any, undocumented people try to buy guns from authorized dealers. Second, the reason for this is that without papers they could not pass a background check, so if they do, it means their fake papers are good enough that no one would report them to ICE anyway. Third, isn't it important to get Republican support for a legislative agenda as important as this? Fourth, this bill is going nowhere fast, anyway, since it will never gain enough support in the Senate and even if it did it could not survive a veto. It is more symbolic than anything.
So, why are these legislators so up-in-arms about Democratic "defections" in this case? I have a suggestion for purists like Ocasio-Cortez. Save your criticism for issues that have real-life consequences. Don't alienate moderates who you will need later on to support an agenda on immigration that really matters.
2
The number of people in the middle class in the US is low and is declining even though median income is fairly high. Adding a decent healthcare plan(like MFA) is important to growing and stabilizing the middle class.
Denmark
Percentage of middle class in 1991: 80%
Percentage of middle class in 2010: 80%
Finland
Percentage of middle class in 1991: 82%
Percentage of middle class in 2010: 75%
France
Percentage of middle class in 1991: 72%
Percentage of middle class in 2010: 74%
Germany
Percentage of middle class in 1991: 78%
Percentage of middle class in 2010: 72%
Ireland
Percentage of middle class in 1991: 60%
Percentage of middle class in 2010: 69%
Italy
Percentage of middle class in 1991: 69%
Percentage of middle class in 2010: 67%
Netherlands
Percentage of middle class in 1991: 76%
Percentage of middle class in 2010: 79%
Norway
Percentage of middle class in 1991: 81%
Percentage of middle class in 2010: 80%
UK
Percentage of middle class in 1991: 61%
Percentage of middle class in 2010: 67%
USA
Percentage of middle class in 1991: 62%
Percentage of middle class in 2010: 59%
China
Percentage of middle class in 2000: 4% (urban households)
Percentage of middle class in 2012: 68% (urban households)
1
Two things that are overlooked in this and similar articles regarding the Democratic Party.
The first has to do with liberalism. Since the Clinton Administration, Democrats have allowed the term liberal to become a pejorative. Instead of explaining how liberalism and affirmative government, rather than the free market created the middle class, Democrats have the other way. This has opened the door to the Libertarian Right allowing it to consistently develop the terms of every debate.
The second has to do with the loose way the term Left is used throughout this country. There is no true Left in the United States. No prominent person on the national stage that I am aware of is advocating for real socialism, i.e. the transfer of the means of production and distribution from private to public hands. Instead what they are encouraging is a more socialized capitalism, the reintroduction of rules, rules that will ensure our market economy operates in the best interests of everyone rather than the privileged few, and an insistence that the U.S. live up to its stated belief that at long last, all Americans enjoy first-class citizenship.
6
The best interests will always be controlled by the will of the business to benefit the shareholders first and at a greater amount than others. This will insure inequity and reinforce greed and power.
@jmgiardina your first claim is wrong. Democratic socialists of America (the part of the Democratic Party Sanders and AOC belong to) advocate for the state’s or public ownership of the means of production. It is on their website. Second, the notion that “affirmative government, whatever it is, grows the middle class is meaningless. The Chinese government grew the middle class tenfold by unleashing the market, while retaining autocratic political power. Is that the kind of government you want for America?
@Mor
Did you miss the part where I mentioned " the best interests of everyone"? Also, since most people don't receive their information regarding the goals of America's Democratic socialists via media, both conventional and social, not the Party's website, and Sanders et al never mention public ownership my point stands.
Nancy Pelosi hasn’t gotten to where she without her native intelligence. I trust her to bring the big tent Democratic Party to power , fending off the false , and the nastiness from those who on,y oppose....everything.
Give em hell Nancy!
4
This party will not be able to stop the aggressive divide and conquer policy of the gop. The divisions of the dems are easier for the voters to react negatively too.
Whether they like it or not the "moderates" will be called socialists, green new dealers, anti-semites, open border fanatics, open all toilet doors advocates , sanctuary city zealots, medicare for all radicals and who knows what. No matter how compliantly "realistic" they want to be they will be called the same as all the others.
2
''She owes her majority to the moderates who won Republican seats...'' - NO, there were many, many Progressives that won seats all across the country. They were not ANYONE's seats but the people's.
I have always said that the Speaker AND the party will move however way dictated by how much of a majority she had in the House, but ALSO how much there is one in the Senate.
The Problem is not the house, because anything that is DEMOCRATIC (let alone Progressive) is filibustered (blocked) in the Senate by republicans. Democrats may have a majority in 2020, but they will not have the 60 vote threshold until at least 2022.
The error going forward that must NOT be made is to continue the tired and old thinking that all of those new representatives and Senators are going to be republican lite candidates.
They are going to be women, and minorities and Progressives.
3
@FunkyIrishman What you describe isn’t true of the 2018 elections. The vast majority of districts that swung the majority to Democrats were for moderates.
9
@John
It IS true of the 2018 elections. The platform of the Democratic party is essentially one for Single Payer now. Things such as $15hr minimum wages, and addressing climate change and a whole host of other things.
Those are no longer republican lite policies. They are Progressive, hence Progressive candidates won. (an historic swing)
They will win again in 20' and going forward.
1
Unfortunately, one need only read the comments of Mr. Edsall's gaggle of "experts" to be reminded of the near-impossibility of communicating a progressive viewpoint in the face of the media's lazy assumptions.
Mr. Mann warns Democrats to shun "outlandish policy proposals" as if such things were actually being considered (Restructuring healthcare delivery to make it affordable is outlandish?). Meanwhile, Prof. Lee summons up the image of a "resurgent far left" among Democrats; but the actual "far left" wants nothing to do with the party.
If newly minted representatives are truly hostile to social democracy, why am I voting at all?
5
@heyblondie "Restructuring healthcare delivery to make it affordable is outlandish?"
Not to mention taking some steps to assure the planet is suitable for human life a century from now, and acknowledging the work of scientists who warn it otherwise may not be.
1
The author makes the facile assumption that Republicans are monolithic while Democrats are not. Actually knowing many Republicans outside of NY, I do not believe this is true. Rather, this assumption is a function of the tendency for Democrats to dehumanize Republicans as intellectually inferior, simply because they do not share the views of progressives. An alternative view is that Democrats are fractured because they are hell-bent on obtaining power at any cost, and that is their goal, not some grand philosophy guiding them.
5
@LTJ Republicans and conservatives are varied, but they are much better at party unity. As demonstrated by their uniting under Trump, or making way for those who would (Flake, Ryan).
1
@LTJ
Funny, by all empirical standards, the Republican ideology is, in fact, not merely intellectually inferior, but anti-human and unworkable.
On the other hand, Democrats goals are reality-based with solutions based on data and need. Simple.
You can make up reasons for whatever makes you feel better. Some day, one hopes, you'll tire of being wrong.
1
Bernie Sanders plans to tap into rising economic frustration in the heartland, and if he succeeds, he’ll resolve the left-center split. The West Virginia wildcat teachers strike with political objectives was more militant than the L.A. strike. Rural Democratic and independent voters may be moderate on abortion rights and gun control, but they’re fed up with the Republican austerity program, which PayGo Democratic politicians echo. The Green New Deal calls for investments and jobs, in step with polls that show support for universal healthcare, better schools, and daycare. Democratic politicians tied to fossil fuel and big pharma donors and clinging to the status quo may find themselves out left behind by voters in 2020.
8
Since Trump won the Republican nomination three years ago, a lot of people think that the Republican party must either disappear or be drastically reconstituted. It nominated someone who should not have been elected. Now the Democrats seem to be headed for a repeat of Hillary -- nominate someone who can't be elected.
What this is telling us, if only we can hear it, is that the state of the parties is not the disease; it's only a symptom. The system is the disease -- gerrymandering, the way the primary system works, the electoral college. We should not be surprised that a badly distorting system produces bad results. We should direct our energies not at changing the results but at changing the system.
2
"Even hostility to president Trump and his Republican Part will not paper over the conflicts". On the contrary, the utter failure and derangement of Trump's GOP has created a monumental opportunity for the Democratic Party in 2020. The media appears eager to dismiss the rational proposals by new Democrats. Rather than printing this distortion, why not ask voters if they like the prospect of being bankrupted by a medical emergency, or if they wish to bestow an unstable climate on their children.
5
God forbid that these Representatives cast their votes solely on what they honestly believed would be best for the country.
3
@John J. These corporate shills vote what's best for the corporations that donate most to their election. Unlike AOC...she votes for what she thinks is best for her people
@John J.Belive it or not, there are many different opinions about what’s best for the country.
@Prede "AOC votes for what she thinks is best for HER people." And what of those of us who are not "her people"?
1
I find the terminology misleading. What is "moderate" or sensible about delaying action on climate change or protecting a profit-driven health care system in which people face bankruptcy due to medical costs and millions are uninsured or underinsured? Many of these so-called moderates are, in effect, Republicans, and the "moderate Democrat" label simply puts a respectable, genteel face on their destructive right-wing policies.
5
Moderate Republicans have rebranded themselves as Moderate Democrats or, to be more precise, they have been driven out of the Reprobate Republican Party.
As Alexander Gorlach notes in another Opinion piece today, the "Greens." a party that could describe many on the Democratic left, and the "Liberals" of various names that appeal to more socially liberal and economically conservative voters, could become the basis for a major - and desperately needed - realignment of American politics.
Many of the central political issues that face the world today, e.g., global warming, cannot be addressed through the lenses of the traditional parties that represent alignments that now are anachronisms. Indeed. both major political parties in the US are gerontocracies, supported by contributions made largely by rich old people.
As for the Democratic Socialists, there is nothing inherently wrong for people to advocate for more accessible health care and post-secondary education largely financed by general taxation. It's just another way of redistributing income, but this time for purposes other than "welfare."
The incentives needed for the "Green" aspect of the "New Deal," however, can be provided by altering the mix of subsidies and taxes that influence economic activity. Give entrepreneurs the opportunity to make money and they will follow through without direct government intervention. Tax polluters, subsidize green energy, and let the "market" work as it should. It doesn't now.
6
@San Ta
As long as Citizens United stands we will continue to see an electorate neutered by monied interests, as big money is a prerequisite for anyone seeking office. Progressives who understand your well-intentioned perspectives are going to have to be smart about how to appeal to eachother, and coalesce around fiscally sound solutions to huge problems.
I think this is what you mean. How to coalesce? Meet eachother in person, get to know eachother, and discover that we are all after the same thing--an America that works, and works for us all. Corporations have no souls. Human beings do I learn more from people I disagree with, and really benefit from conversing.
The press, including the The NYTimes, helped the Democrats lose in 2016 by focusing overly on Hillary’s emails while ignoring the many progressive policies she was proposing.
Similarly, today, the media are doing their best to see that the Dems lose again in 2020, by stressing, in report after report, how divided the Democrats are.
In fact, the Dems are united on a host of issues, kitchen-table issues, such as jobs, wages, unions, taxes, parental leave, retirement security, health care, child care, children's education, the opioid crisis, and climate change. Sure, there are differences in style and emphasis, but those the Dems will iron out—if only the press will give them the space to do it.
Thomas Edsall is part of this. Nary a week passes when he doesn’t hit on divisions among Democrats. I suppose it wins eyeballs for him. I used to be a fan of his, but no more.
27
AOC only got 15,000 votes in the primary which lead to her getting into Congress. Many of the policies that she supports would be good for the country, but do not represent the views of even the majority of Democrats. She should realize that the Republicans are completely united and that the Democrats have to be united in Order to get anywhere both on passing good legislation and in finding out what corruption we have it in the government.
3
The main concern of Democrats, Nancy Pelosi, and every other American should be the current trajectory of this nation, and the possibility of Donald Trump securing another term in the Oval Office because of a repeat of the 2016 election.
And with this new wave of "democratic socialists" impatient to take over the lead, without working wit experienced or moderate voices, the scenario could very well be set for another Democratic defeat.
This isn't to say that their ambitious proposals lack merit, because it's high time they've been brought to the fore.
But without their realization that not all Democrats and any recent Republican converts are willing to be dragged so unrepentantly to the left, the odds are that the party will split into factions...again.
If Democrats are to take any kind of lesson away from this, it should be the example of what happened when the G.O.P. split up into the various factions and wings that ultimately dragged that party to the right of the scale where they, and this president are today.
However they have the advantage of basically being composed of the same demographic, and therefore able to quickly consolidate.
Not so with Democrats, who by and large represent the true diversity of this nation.
Until the U.S. evolves into a system with more than the two political parties it has now, we'll have to work within those bounds.
And after living under Republican control all three branches of government, now is not the time to risk it.
3
@N. Smith
A moderate centrist does not inspire, and will not be elected.
The huge and growing wealth/income inequality gap. and the climate crisis are ticking time bombs.
The time is now for a bold leader with bold ideas.
Senator Bernie Sanders is the only candidate with bold ideas on domestic and foreign policy.
It is comical that Democrats are so passive in supporting military action that have added six trillion to the debt, contributed hugely to the climate crisis and made the US and world less safe.
For those who care about the future, the time for change is NOW!
2
@Lucy Cooke
And since when are you able to speak for anyone other than yourself?
Just for the record.
Democracy doesn't work by having other people put words in their mouth -- And yes, it involves a bit of compromise in order to get EVERYONE on board.
That's the only way there will be a future for all!
2
@Lucy Cooke
I regret that I urged my kids not to support Bernie, as I did, convincing them that he could not win and would take votes away from Hillary in a tight race. It's a tragedy that he didn't win, in part because of people like me who underestimated the power and resolve of his youthful, and not so youthful supporters. I really wonder now if he'll win because of his age. I certainly won't discourage anyone from supporting him right up to the time the likely frontrunner is clear. They can decide then who is the better candidate.
The Democrats need to stand united and keep the focus on how the Republican agenda was really a lie that benefits only the very wealthy and how Progressive policies are designed for the benefit of the many not the few. The media could help by pointing out the truth and not trying to stir up controversy for the sake of ratings.
Both Obama and Trump are evidence that the nation is indeed seeking radical change they just have not figured out what that is and who will be best able to provide it.
5
I am a Bernie Sanders supporter.
I immensely value his emphasis on the needs all poor and working people have in common, and recognizing,
but NOT emphasizing the diverse identities...
with the idea that by working together to meet common needs, people of diverse identities and values will have a better chance to understand each other's point of view.
If Democrats are going to be a strong coalition, they need to recognize that immigrants, undocumented or legal, often take jobs, and, maybe housing, from poor and working people.
The people who benefit most from immigration are, of course, the immigrants, but also the "one percent".
The issue of immigration, legal or illegal is very complicated!
Democrats need to recognize that immigration is seen negatively by many people who, otherwise, might be more receptive to the issues of Progressive Democrats.
The US would be wise to stop wrecking whole countries, something, embarrassingly supported by most Democrats,
and instead of destabilizing countries to benefit the national interest [the global elite], stabilize countries so that people don't have to flee US provoked death and destruction.
7
@Lucy Cooke Well said. I've been saying this for years. Bernie said it best in that interview with VOX, who want "open borders" and he openly laughed in their face saying that's a koch brother's proposal, even though VOX supports it he does not because it hurts working people in this country. DUH. Why is that so hard of a position to take. If common sense isn't good enough for these democrats they should consider illegal immigrants can't vote, so why pander to them anyway. Trans rights, while important also is irrelevant in politics as they make up 1% of the population. Don't focus on hot button issues aimed to make you lose most people, focus on kitchen table and you win! Maybe once we make sure everyone has a job and healthcare we can debate who should use what bathroom.
1
Funny, I thought the AOC's and the democratic socialists are all for gun control, and if they genuinely support gun control, they should know full well that when a proper background check is performed, someone's history -- including immigration history, will come out. For once the house republicans have proposed something sensible and they still want to fight it, for what?
12
@lateotw
The point of the background check is to see if the person is dangerous or deranged, not illegal.
Not everything the government does can or should be used to weed out "illegal" or undocumented Hispanics. The Republicans added this to find a few Democrats to split off, who they could identify as not sufficiently racist to their voters in 2020. It wasn't to help reduce mass shootings, domestic violence, or suicide.
1
Mr. Edsall does not discuss many of the reasons that people vote for a candidate other than the candidate's views on major policy questions.
People vote for a candidate they like and trust much more than they like and trust the candidate's opponent, one who shares their identity, who has rendered service to them or their community as an incumbent, and/or one who offers a broad, overriding not too detailed message that the voter agrees with.
Trump didn't win because of the policies he proposed. He essentially won because more than 60 million voters thought he was "on their side", whatever that means.
In turn, last year the Democrats won the House -- but not the Senate -- primarily because large numbers of voters in swing districts were turned off by Trump's demeanor in office (vulgarity, lies, bullying, general ignorance, hostility to American allies, corruption, disrespect for law, etc.) rather than particular policies.
The Democrats can easily defeat Trump and carry the House and maybe even the Senate if the presidential candidate is seen as reasonable, likeable and trustworthy, who hasn't been tainted by scandal or long-term organized hostility, and who avoids extreme positions not favored by the majority of the voters while supporting expansion of and reducing the cost of health care, defense of the environment, reducing inequality, renewing infrastructure, improving education at all levels, and restoring trust with our allies abroad.
6
Progressive policies are no more expensive than the GOP platform. The difference is unlike tax cuts progressive policies would help almost everyone.
5
@Bill smith -- with regard specifically to the "green" agenda of the "Green New Deal" (something I know a lot about)
It says nothing about HOW it's goals are to be achieved. This means it isn't a "PLAN" ... ("Go to the beach" is not a plan. "Get in the car and drive to the beach" starts to be the barest rudiments of one, presuming you have a car.) HOW really matters to the costs, and just about everything else.
The claim that it is "no more expensive than" ... there is no GOP plan with broad support, so that whole issue is like two 5 year old boys arguing over who will be the bigger star in the NBA.
I'm sure you don't like it, but Ms. AOC got the "it's a first try" response from Nancy Pelosi and almost all the Democrats. This needs to be seen for the rebuke it is, on par with the southernism "Why bless your sweet heart" ... and Ms AOC and whatever "team" she had that threw together this dog's breakfast do now have a choice: scream and sulk, or actually go and put together some sort of ... you know ... PLAN.
Turning to a real bill that has been submitted, with some concerns I support HR 763: a carbon-tax bill:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/763/text
I would urge everyone reading here, of any political persuasion, to read and understand this bill.
Bill -- what do you or Ms.AOC think about this bill, in particular why is Ms. AOC ignoring it?
35
My concerns:
1. this bill exempts fossil fuels used for farming. It is obvious that this will become a massive loophole for diversion and fraud. Less obviously it will distort carbon economics for agriculture.
I would support a transition measure that provided a tax-free fuel allowance per acre planted (depending on crop), this allowance to slowly go away.
2. This bill does not address the repeal of all the other energy/fuel subsidies, and that is in fact critical, once the carbon tax becomes significant. These all need to be ramped down as the carbon tax ramps up.
Shifting to a related topic, in my view among the most critical problems that we need the federal government to deal with is the problem of interstate commerce in electricity, and the need for a true 48-state "national grid." This means HVDC, a technology that exists today (and has in fact existed since the 1930s).
Please read my NYT dot-earth contribution here:
https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/can-obama-do-for-the-grid-what-eisenhower-did-for-highways/
It's slightly dated now, but on the whole has stood up well.
Thank you.
2
@Lee Harrison
Please remind me what the "PLAN" was for winning (and paying for) our misguided, bipartisan-approved wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- currently at $6 TRILLION and counting!
Somehow, magically, the taxpayer $$$$ always manage to be found for anything that promises big profits to the weapons makers and resource extractors. But investing the money to care for sick and injured Americans at a far lower percent of our GDP over the long haul, well..that's somehow a nonstarter.
They need to worry a lot. The gaslighting of Rep. Omar, Sen. Feinstein showing that her climate change stance is just lip service - these are not behaviors we can collaborate with anymore.
10
@Joseph M -- just what "gaslighting" do you mean, and who is "gaslighting" who? I will stick to CO2 and climate policy issues, because that is something I know.
The "green" in the "Green New Deal" is not legislatable, it cannot even be called "a plan." It's a word salad written by a committee with a 6th-grade comprehension of "green" buzzwords.
With some concerns I support HR 763
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/763/text
I would urge everyone reading here, of any political persuasion, to read and understand this bill. Joseph, what do you think of it? And what does Ms.AOC think, and why does she refuse to even address it?
My concerns:
1. this bill exempts fossil fuels used for farming. It is obvious that this will become a massive loophole for diversion and fraud. Less obviously it will distort carbon economics for agriculture.
I would support a transition measure that provided a tax-free fuel allowance per acre planted (depending on crop), this allowance to slowly go away.
2. This bill does not address the repeal of all the other energy/fuel subsidies, and that is in fact critical, once the carbon tax becomes significant. These all need to be ramped down as the carbon tax ramps up.
1
@Joseph M That’s fine but understand that a failure to collaborate will equate to a failure in maintaining a majority in government.
The moderate and liberal Democratic members need to be on board with Pelosi to push the party agenda forward. She can obviously throw them bones and let them vote with their constituencies, but what can't happen is members forming factions to side with Republicans behind the Speakers back to make statements against her leadership. This has to be stamped out otherwise the Democratic led House will be short lived.
6
A couple of weeks ago we watched Diane Feinstein embarrass herself, taking on a group of REALLY young ones.
She did everything except shake her finger in their faces.
What were the young ones trying to tell her?
That our planet is rupturing.
As long as Pelosi doesn't pull that same stunt, she should be okay, but no one is going to take any "experienced, veteran politician" overly serious after just having watched those same pols hold their tongue during the last 2 years.
Frankly, for the last 2 years, Nancy and Diane should have been out the Capitol steps every Monday morning, reading a list of legal obligations that the Republicans were sloughing off. They should have been naming names and pointing out the games.
But they didn't.
Nor, I suspect, did they do much to get these "radical" young ones elected.
That was left to the gerry-mandered citizens to do.
The one thing that Republicans want these "radicals" to do is.... disappear.
But they truly are not going anywhere.
They have a job to do.
It is a job that Republicans should have done 40 years ago.
But the Republican Party is dead. Long gone.
Gone against the needs of this country.
Climate change.
Killing unions.
Homelessness.
Plastics.
Fracked water.
Swiping all the known money in the known universe....
No. Nancy just needs to do her job.
Just as the new ones will be doing theirs.
There's room for all of us.
7
How can medicare for all be considered far left?
7
@heinrich zwahlen
We should be talking about Medicaid for all not Medicare for all
Medicare has been paid for by the recipients for 30 or 40 years so they should be able to keep Medicare while Medicaid for all should be created for those who have never paid in to Medicare
@heinrich zwahlen -- I don't think it is so "far left," but the problem here is that so many people think this is all a "click the heels of your ruby slippers three times..." proposition.
Health care policy is frankly a nightmare any way you turn. When you are talking about roughly 1/7th of the economy that is admittedly a wretched mess "simple" fixes rarely are. Claiming "it's so easy, you just..." means you don't understand the problems.
* If current medicare reimbursement rates were universal, our healthcare system as it is would collapse. You need to either accept and legislate much higher medicare reimbursement rates, or you must take on the job of making the health care system more efficient, or you must accept large losses of real care.
* the transition will cause the system to collapse if actually done as one-fell-swoop medicare for all. Doing it by moving the medicare age down at some rate might work, but even that will cause problems you should not ignore.
* there will be losers. You don't appear to even know who they are? They vote.
1
Like an impatient freedom fighter unable to wait for reinforcements to arrive who sticks his head up to shoot at the enemy only to earn a trip home in a body bag, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, many of them new to Congress, have apparently not yet learned that in the face of unified Republican opposition, in addition to your House majority, you need 60 Senators and the President on your side to pass anything big, e.g., Obamacare. Until 13 Democratic Senators and a Democratic President arrive, you must play the admittedly less satisfying long game, do no harm, and set the conditions for success in 2020 and 2022. Continue pushing moderates up against the wall blindfolded and the progressives will learn this lesson the hard way, by serving in the minority in the House under Speaker McCarthy, or worse. Speaker Pelosi, please use your magic to prevail upon your restive caucus to understand that 50+ votes to pass a Green New Deal or M4A, will advance them not one step closer to their goal than did 50+ votes by House Republicans to repeal Obamacare, and give them the tools and some legislative accomplishment to keep their constituents patient.
3
The "… Republican proposal to require reporting undocumented immigrants who try to buy guns to immigration authorities…" assumes that the prospective seller would know the immigration status of a customer. Doubtful. Unlikely to actually accomplish anything.
In any case, it wasn't designed as a practical proposal to keep weapons out of the hands of undocumented persons. It was a "gotcha" amendment intended to further the idea that they represent more of a threat of violence to Americans than do native-born citizens. So-called "moderates" fell for it. Going along with Trump's racist narrative isn't likely to be a winning strategy. Ultimately, it strengthens his hand.
1
@writeon1 -- admit it .. the Dems got themselves into a bit of an embarrassing jam, they got played by some Republicans, and part of the problem here is just some careless floor management and a lack of savvy about how to play the "motion to recommit" game. Mrs. Pelosi bears part of the blame for this, but so do all the rookie Democrats who got taken.
If you look at the proposition "should an illegal alien be permitted to try to buy gun with impunity" the answer must be "NO." I'm a leftie, but the fact of the matter is that you can call this a "gotcha" if you want, but OK, you need to admit they gotcha.
Now you are right, it's not really much of an issue ... how many illegal aliens even try this? It's really brain-dead stupid.
But given that the floor management on the bill failed to head it off, AND that apparently all the Democrats were either too flustered or unable to actually work together to amend the motion to recommit with {further} instructions the Dems should have all just accepted that the Republicans won a sly stunt.
Read here about the legislative tactical issues:
https://www.legbranch.org/motions-to-recommit-a-brief-history-and-reform-options/
This issue will reach a boiling point in 2021 if a progressive Democrat manages to win the Presidency. Right now a house vote on a bill that cannot get Senate support is merely symbolic. Failure to pass the progressive agenda for a progressive President would cause a major rift in the party. I predict this will happen should Bernie Sanders or a similar candidate become President. A moderate voting for some of these policies will assure themselves of defeat in the next election and progressives seem to be in no mood to compromise, even within their own party.
Did you see the deficit report today? It is exploding to heights the world has never seen - all thanks to the Trump tax plan voted on exclusively by republicans
To quote you know who, “We won’t have a country if we don’t fix this”
5
On this one, I support the moderate Dems. Undocumented immigrants should not have access to guns.
16
@paul
Yes, I describe myself as progressive/ very liberal, but that one had me scratching my head.
So protecting undocumented immigrants is more important than common sense gun control? Which, by the way, is something the party as a whole, AND a large plurality of voters want.
6
@paul
The Amendment wasn't about illegal immigrants having access to guns or not having access to guns. It was about once an illegal immigrant has tried to buy a gun and been refused because of their immigration status would ICE be notified. Republicans felt they should be, Democrats argued they should not be. Just let that illegal immigrant trying to buy a gun get back to a sanctuary city without any harassment from ICE, or even having to worry about them.
1
@paul It is kind of slick, isn't it? The GOP forces Dems to vote against gun control. And, since it only applies to illegal immigrants, they receive no backlash from their own base.
Dems need to stick to bread-and butter issues AND get the message out that these are not "left" issues.
3
He does have many admirable qualities, but he is pro-fracking. We need a President that goes all out on renewable energy and fixing our climate problem. All the rest doesn't really matter when we're facing "climate genocide".
1
@WomanThinking
Nonsense. We don't have the battery capacity for 100% renewables, and even if we did, environmentalists would not like what that entails. It may be possible in twenty years, depending.
What we need is a mix, I'd ideally like 50/50 nuclear (modern 4th gen, while working on thorium, use salt and it is essentially impossible to meltdown) and renewable. People will complain about the waste (even if you use a rebreeder to recycle it and reduce it to a 1/10th of normal) and about the massive solar farms and off-shore wind and tidal, but people will complain about anything and everything under the sun. A nuclear and renewable mix is the most practical solution, only made difficult because NIMBY fanatics don't understand physics or mathematics, much less how an electrical grid works, and because the well is still poisoned by the old anti-nukes movement from the Cold War who cheerfully conflated anything with splitting atoms with being a bomb or making material for bombs.
Currently my parents can’t pay for all there medications. A hospital visit becomes a nightmare of waiting because patients are viewed as an irritant not people. Pension plans are not up to par because of poor state management. They are paying income taxes and not getting a refund because rich people get tax breaks.
Yes it’s important to support the party I get it. However we need politicians who are going to represent the people who voted for them. Most people are sick and tired of being sick and tired.
Over thinking doesn’t reduce the price of medicine action does.
I am tired of generation gaps everyone should be concerned about everyone no matter what age group they are in not just there selfish self’s.
The traitor is in the White House so congress better do there jobs along with the senate,
2
Congressional "moderate" Democrats voted with Republicans to require a gun control regulation. What just happened here? I thought Republicans were adamant that guns didn't kill people, only people killed people.
It's been the dilemma for Democrats for decades. The Republican party, from Nixon's Southern Strategy and through Reaganism and Trumpism, has continually purified itself into the party of one homogeneous demographic—white conservatives. The Democrats are the party of everyone else. The advantage for the GOP is clear. Though their demographic is not a majority, it is the largest demographic in the nation and, with our senate, electoral college, and gerrymandered congressional districts, it is large enough to control every branch of government. Because it's homogeneous, the GOP is able to present a consistent, coherent message that everyone in the party embraces. No dissent is tolerated. The party is always on message, always unified.
On the other side, the Democrats swing wildly between the interests of their various demographics—as well as trying to appeal to white conservatives. All this creates a muddled, incoherent message. No one understands what the Democrats stand for because they are forced to stand for too many disparate and often contradictory things.
In the end there is no resolution of this dilemma for the Democrats. The nature of their coalition means they'll always be divided. So what should they do? The only answer, I think, is that the Democrats should do what's best for the country. Right now, I think that means swinging left to aggressively address climate change and improve the social safety net.
When you can't please everyone, just do what's right.
169
@617to416
Excellent commentary, thank you!
12
@617to416
Yup. Just like Will Rogers said, "Sir, I am not a member of any organized political party! I am a Democrat."
7
@617to416 It's amazing to me how Progressively-minded folks are so terrible at math. Just because there are two parties doesn't mean there are only two groups of voters.
There is a significant number of independents, who don't pledge loyalty to either party, who are usually the lynch-pin deciders of every election.
By and large, these independents hover around the political center, and their voted sway back and forth between the parties.
The Democrats won the House--barely--by painting Trump as someone who was tacking too far to the Right and needed to be reigned in. How do you think those independents will vote if the Democrats suddenly decide to hard-tack to the extreme Left?
They won't just not vote Democrat--they will actively oppose by voting Republican to stop it. It won't be Republicans who will abandon Democrats. They don't have and don't want Republicans to embrace them. But they DO need independents. And independents are rarely independent because political parties aren't radical ENOUGH, but because they are TOO radical.
I have concerns for many of Trump's choices. But right now, AOC and her like are making him look like a very reasonable alternative to radical economy-crushing crazy ideas whose proponents aren't even trying to modify into serious, affordable proposals.
They're building Trump's campaign for him.
13
I'm a lot closer to 70 than to 30, but I am one of many boomers who have long been disgusted with the way the Democratic Leadership has spent the last 40 years playing defense instead of offense.
They are coasting on the accomplishments of 50 to 80 years ago, especially Social Security and Medicare, formulated back in the days when the Democrats led with programs that meet people's needs instead of just trying to appease the bullies.
Obama's Affordable Care Act looked like a bold move on the surface, but ultimately, it was a reworking of the Heritage Foundation's proposal designed especially to win Republican votes--as if Obama had not heard Mitch McConnell say that he was going to thwart everything Obama did.
I love it that AOC and Ilhan Omar and the other newbie House representatives are shaking things up. The older generation of Democrats got stuck in a mindset of low expectations during the Reagan era, and they are hemmed in by what they *believe* to be possible. They listen to the pundits who drone on and one about "America is a center-right country" and have been in Washington for so long that they really don't understand what is happening down here on the ground.
As for the accusations of "socialism," the Dems need to educate the voters, not in a didactic way, but by using colorful examples and plain speech delivered with conviction and vigor.
5
On the specific issue:
I have no problem keeping unauthorized immigrants from buying guns, but I think the should be able to get drivers licenses. While unauthorized immigrants are generally neither a public safety nor a national security risk, the way they interact with regulations should reflect the public interest.
4
I've been a loyal, moderate Democrat for 47 years, but the new Justice Democrats tell me there is no place in the party for me. These young people don't even turn out to vote, but they claim they have the microphone and they are in charge. I'm changing my registration to Independent. If the Democratic Party wants to drive the moderates out, so be it. Good luck trying to win us back.
12
@Ann Your position and upset would make sense were it not for the total immoderation of the republican party since Reagan. The positions they have taken have grown increasingly radical with the potential to destroy social safety net programs like Social Security and Medicare. As it is the problems the Social Security system ks facing with funding have been perpetuated and exacerbated by their refusal to allow the income cap to be raised in light of current income realities.
Like you, I used to register as independent because I felt no particular loyalty to either party. However, I realized that the republican's agenda had become so absurdly skewed that I could never support it. While I had some differences with some democratic policies, my registration as an independent prevented me from voting in primaries, eliminating my ability to influence the democratic agendas, so I switched. I'm glad I did. You should reconsider your decision.
5
Look at the Democrats’ winning margin in the House. Where does that come from? Not from the youth vote. It comes largely from conservative, Republican districts, as Edsall points out.
The Democrats’ split is between those in the Party who want to win in 2020 so they can implement progressive policies, and those (mostly younger) who simply are spoiling for a fight.
I’m as frustrated as anyone by the lack of progress in this country on a host of issues. But I understand the political realities, that is, what's needed to win. I also know that if we wait for the youth to vote, we'll wait in vain, and we'll lose.
8
@Ron Cohen Think about how human life cycles work and then think forward like 4 or 12 years. Who's dead and who's left? We don't have a choice but to embrace the young or the party has no future. This is about first order and second order. Democrats are the party of first order and the Republicans are the party of second order. Democrats want a safe glide path so they can merely survive another election, squeak by. Republicans are acceleration, constantly gasing to change the debate, to change minds, to win the day tomorrow. They don't accept public opinion they shape it. In the long run we're dead if we don't start taking risks and standing for something too.
2
@Joseph M
Baloney! You look forward 4 or 12 years. There won’t be any democracy to save. Myself, I’m looking forward one year, to 2020, because I know it will be our last chance to save democracy.
2
I'm a life-long moderate who usually votes Democrat, and I see nothing wrong with a provision in the [long overdue, sorely needed] background check legislation that reports undocumented immigrants to the proper authorities if they fail a gun purchase background check, and that doesn't make me anti-immigrant or racist. It makes me anti-crime, period.
21
@Dew -- ask yourself "how many illegal immigrants are stupid enough to actually go in and fill out the form 4473 and try to buy a gun that way?"
Please go look at the form ... look at line k: "Are you an illegal alien?"
If an illegal alien answers that "no" in attempt to get a gun that is already a felony punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment (and deportation), see the top of the form.
An illegal alien can get to that point and just quit. Nothing would happen, even with the passed bill. That would sure be the smart move.
Or they could be so stupid as to check "yes" ... and ALL this GOP motion is about is people that stupid. How many are there? Is this any sort of real problem at all?
This is just stupid "gotcha" politics and the Democrats got played. Move on.
Edsall makes a good point here regarding the media. And the left and mainstream media are just as guilty as GOP-TV in this.
Listen, new liberal blood in the House like AOC and Tlaib is great, but the media portrays them as representative of the party as a whole, which couldn't be further from the truth. Of course the reasons are simple - the media needs to create conflict and polarity where it doesn't exist because that 'infotainment' model is what they think draws viewership - and advertising dollars.
Let's see more of the Conor Lambs and the Mikie Sherrills on cable TV news outlets. And regarding 'kitchen table' policies of a fairer tax code, better education funding, more effective regulations, more legal protections for unionization, raising the minimum wage, etc. (all issues that have large pluralities of voter support, btw) ALL democrats have a heck of a lot more in common than the media reports.
15
I think there should be four parties to truly represent the American public. The far left that proposes "Medicare for all" and "Guarenteed Income" (the Cory Booker) part of the party and a second party the more moderate Democrats "Obamacare" or (the Nancy Pelosi) portion of the party. The third party could be the "John McCain" (RIP) and the "Jeff Flake" Republicans and finally the "Donald Trump" Republicans. That would be a more honest division and really show where the country stands.
1
@John Chapin
If you associate Cory Booker with the far left you haven't been paying all that much attention....
3
Universal healthcare is a reality in all first world nations other than the USA. A majority of Americans want some version of it here, with everyone covered and nobody bankrupted. Why label it a “Far Left” aspiration?
4
This is somewhat confusing....I am very critical of the Republican Party in Congress for many reasons, but near the top is their refusal to depart from Party control and refusal to any bipartisanship.
Isn't this the same thing the Democratic party leadership in the House is wanting to do?
How is it possible to have bipartisanship?
2
Ever since Cortez won the primary in last June, I've been concerned that the media will do the same with her as it did with Trump; give an out-sized amount of coverage, amplifying all she does. That's why the Green New Deal rollout was such a catastrophe, as there was a double whammy; first, just because AOC was involved in it, and second because of the amateurism.
These progressives might think they're being Avant Garde, but the upshot of their grandstanding is it makes the re-election of Trump (or a Republican, if Trump resigns or is so politically damaged as to be unelectable) and the GOP re-conquest of the House more likely. The progressives might care more about ideological purity, but that means little without political power; and if the Republicans understand one thing, it's political power.
8
The Media is doing us no favors. They once again are promoting the bloodlust battle by needling both sides with unnecessary labels and insinuations designed to raise the hackles on the easily provoked. Do they do this in the interest of educating the people or just promoting ticket sales to the fight. Right now I think they are selling controversy for controversies sake and their pocketbook.
3
After a devastating 2016, the Democratic Party has little to show for itself after years of moderate center right governing. The market friendly system of expanding healthcare access known as Obamacare, was pilloried as "socialist". The left is going to be accused of radical socialism, no matter what they espouse. Time for bold progressive proposals to get a voice in government.
10
A platform that progressive and moderate Dems can accept along with a legislative agenda is needed. I am sure Pelosi, Stoyer etc have tried to do so it has not been publicly endorsed by the caucus. Is the priority impeachment, gun control, health care, carbon policy, immigration, tax policy or foreign policy? The diversity of the Dems needs to be turned into a strength. There is plenty for all to contribute if there is team work. The future of the country depends on it.
3
The Democrats have an overwhelming majority of voters in this country, tied at the hip to its political diversity. That's good for Democrats.
The Republican Party went through a very similar problem when the liberty caucus blocked House leader Boehner from making a budget deal with President Obama. Boehner was eventually pushed out and Ryan became a do nothing leader.
The Republican minority is united because the Democrats have peeled off the center off the Republican party. Their State run media, Fox, has become an echo chamber for President Trump and the Republican Congress follows in lock step.
So far the majority hasn't won the Senate and the Presidency because of the electoral minority holds the cards. That could easily shift in the next election as more Republican Senators are up for election which might well tilt the playing field in favor of Democrats. It will also mean more Conservative and centrist Democrats in the Senate.
The more the Republican party looks like Donald Trump's party the Democratic party is likely to grow. That growth comes with more diversity. President's Clinton and Obama were both able to pull the left to the center through the force of their personalities. Hillary Clinton wasn't able to do it and the left enabled the Republicans. I'm hopeful they won't do it again.
4
Correlation does not imply causation.
The underlying assumption of this article that only moderates could have been elected in these previously Republican held constituencies remains unproven.
After all, many previously moderate people did vote for Trump, an extremist, or the math doesn’t add up.
3
Too much press is given to the new young members. The Dems are in a difficult place but must maintain a moderate stance or lose everything.
10
While this column is “concerned” about conflict within one political party the Senate is about to vote on a bill that will weakly maintain the general stance of the Republicans not to spend money on a Wall by opposing the President’s end run around them. However, as a party they apparently don’t have the backbone to override his veto. In short, they are re-inforcing the tendency of this President to authoritarianism. Backed by the forth coming narrow decision of the Supreme Court and its reactionary justices, the right of the President to declare emergencies, real or imagined, inspite of the historical opposition of the Congress to spend money in a particular way, will be upheld and our democracy will have a crack in it large enough to drive a Russian tank through it.
By the time of the 2020 election the question of whether the Dems are too far “left” will have been made essentially moot since the President and the corporate money men who pay for Republican elections will have made the Congress impotent as a legislating body: why worry about Congress since you can always go around them on a pretext of one kind or another in order to do what you want?
11
This piece is primarily about competing forces within the Democratic Party, but the example cited at the outset deserves attention as well.
Many Americans must find it disturbing to see lawmakers or office-seekers trying to give cover to something which everyone acknowledges to be illegal. Opinion surveys show that the majority of Americans are pro-immigrant in a general way. However, politicians who take an unequivocal pro-immigrant stance and treat the word "illegal" as little more than an asterisk may have to spend precious time and effort explaining how that can be right. Even though they find it an easy sell with their own constituents, they're liable to pose a seat-threatening problem for others toiling under the same Democratic brand.
No doubt the Democrats who take such a stance are striving to prevent the stigmatization of people whose conduct as members of society is beyond reproach. But the question of legality persists. It's by no means obvious that certain people who are violating the law deserve blanket protection. If the assumption is that they are all essentially refugees, let's have a discussion of that assumption and find out how valid it is.
Taking a principled position on immigration will not tend to legitimize Donald Trump's unprincipled anti-immigrant narrative. Failing to do so may leave that narrative effectively unanswered in the minds of people who reject a law-flouting position out of hand.
12
@Longestaffe Excellent, sober, well-reasoned comment. Thank you.
Do the Democrats need their own "Tea Party" that starts pushing the large body with far fewer members with the threat of a primary challenge? I don't think so, but some, perhaps out of desperation welcome the fringe members and their very Tea Party-like behavior. I fear that this may give too much material to the Republicans to use on their supporters as they already do.
First, win strong elections and control more than one source of power. Then, in a politically astute way try to introduce the ideas that can be discussed. Using proper language, of course!
4
This is a huge concern for Dems. The split is going to stop many from voting in 2020 and propel Trump to another 4 years in the White House. There's nothing that can be done about it now, however. Resentment and anger have fractured the party. We don't really see it as a big problem now because we all agree that we have to get rid of Trump. But wait till the debates start. Oh boy. And I'm not sure if this problem in the party can be fixed when it comes to winning the White House. Open borders might be the only option we have?
2
Mr. Edsall goes into the details with lots of commentary from people who know a lot about these matters. From a political neophyte more concerned with the broad brush strokes, I see the Democratic party reverting to type. Since I first voted, managing the party has been like herding cats. Dems have always had the problem of considering a multitude of points of view, which leads to sometimes debilitating internal divisions.
Imagine, a Democratic party that is actually democratic!
3
If the United States had anything remotely representing a democracy, universal voting rights or a representative government, the radical right regressive religious Republican party would have been a minor fringe party in the permanent minority since 1992.
But due to the successful right-wing hijacking and coup d'etat of the airwaves, House district maps, voter files and the amygdalas of millions of duped Americans, we are stuck in a criminal Republican ditch filled with a mountain of Trump dirty diapers.
America is a much more centrist and leftist country than it is given credit for, but it's hidden because of the successful pirating of America's democracy by the radical right wing.
In no other country would it be possible for the Senate leader to characterize the modest and reasonable proposal of making Election Day a federal holiday a “power grab”, as Monarch Mitch McConnell did recently.
In no other major country - aside from Russia - is one mainstream political party so tirelessly dedicated to fighting democracy in its own country.
The Democrats have their issues, but the Republican Party literally can't the will of the American people, democracy or America.
Anyone voting for these Russian-Republicans has also long abandoned American ideals, principles and any sense of patriotism.
D for democracy; R for Russian-Republican rot and tyranny of the corrupt minority.
171
@Socrates
"In no other country would it be possible for the Senate leader to characterize the modest and reasonable proposal of making Election Day a federal holiday a 'power grab,' as Monarch Mitch McConnell did recently."
Exactly. Pure gaslighting
25
@Socrates
"Russian Republicans"
Spot on.
7
@Socrates: The US has a "representative" government, it just doesn't represent those who bother to voice their preferences by voting. Money talks: it always did.
3
It's all or nothing, burn it down. Maybe we have to sink even lower and add more like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to serve for the next 40 years before those who don't think like me wake up to reality.
6
@Tom Daley
JUSTICES AND JUDGES
This is why Mitch McConnell's is protecting, (aiding and abetting) Trump in the WH.
Mitch can't stand Trump but he needs his signing hand to appoint ultra conservative christian judges!
And McConnell is moving forward at warp speed at this very moment to fill all vacant judicial positions before Trump gets the boot.
The judicial damage Trump and his accomplice, Mitch McConnell, are imposing on our nation will have a devastating impact on women, minorities and our environment for years and years to come.
More reason not to "wait" til 2020 to remove Trump.
On the same editorial page there is an interesting reflection on the political realignment in Germany. In that op-ed the writer generalizes that similar shifts are occurring throughout the West. It is an educated, cosmopolitan young versus the lesser learned, hidebound old, who are passing on, of course. The swing districts may reflect that kind of change, and tacking to the center may not excite the young.
2
“The progressives are committed to an ambitious and expensive set of proposals, including a Green New Deal and Medicare for All,”
This is framing of the discussion that incorrectly places the “center.” Both of these “left” agenda demands are about reducing cost. Healthcare in this country roughly twice as expensive as in the rest of the world and documented cost of Medicare significantly lower than its private sector counterpart—This proposal is not expensive.
Same is true for the aspirational Green New Deal. Without question, continued reliance on fossil fuel will be more expensive in a 50 year timeframe. Very likely true for 20 years and even 10. And where will Americans find themselves competitively, relative to the rest of the world, if still chained to 20th century fossil fuel technology.
6
I'm no "at all cost" Democrat, notwithstanding that I will NEVER AGAIN vote for anyone daring to identify as a Republican. Still, I'm feeling the split within the Democrats, and so long as I remain registered, I have begun to seriously cherry-pick candidates that I will support. For instance, Pelosi is precisely the type of Democrat that I admire: strong, pragmatic and moderate and yet progressive in her politics, putting the interests of people first. AOC, aka "who dis", does not represent many of my core views, such as the one outlined in this opinion. For example, NO ONE who is undocumented should receive the same rights and privileges as someone who's here legally. Secondly, the idea of an undocumented immigrant being able to purchase a gun (FOR WHAT REASON?!) boggles my mind. This is precisely the sort of outrageous overreach that will hand future national office to the Republicans, heaven help us! I'm not sure what Pelosi can do to prevent this. She is NOT a panderer nor should she be. At the same time, you have people like Omar and AOC trying to run before they've learned to walk - they haven't earned one legislative achievement and yet are seeking to shake things up merely for the sake of doing so, regardless of the results. This country is NOT going to embrace a radical agenda. Instead, let's start by cementing a solid moderately liberal one and take it from there. That's how to win and reap the benefits liberals are striving so let's aim for that FIRST.
13
I don’t think you mean exactly what you say. Everyone, citizen and noncitizen alike, is due equal protection under the law. AOC is not shaking things up just to be mischievous.
Unlike Ancient Rome, under our system very few rights are restricted only to citizens. Voting is the only one I can think of. Noncitizens hold passports, drivers licenses, and social security numbers. They pay taxes. If arrested, they are protected by and charged under the same laws.
Being here illegally is a different matter, of course. But that’s not what you said.
Many Democrats in the 114th campaigned on Medicare for All. HR 676 has over 100 cosponsors. Far from “radical”, universal healthcare has been on the Democratic agenda since Truman, famously including Clinton. It is the norm in every other wealthy country.
For the privilege of our corrupt so-called system, we pay twice the average, 1/3 more than any other country for healthcare. By that measure, and by analysis, we know that 1/3 is lost to profiteering and Byzantine inefficiency. Anyone with a single encounter with any health insurance company knows that.
The challenge now more than ever is not to marshal the facts, but to overcome ideological preconceptions and pervasive industrial disinformation. Medicare for All will save $1 trillion and 50,000 American lives every year, put an end to medical bankruptcy, and give Americans the security of knowing their access to a doctor doesn’t depend on holding on to a corporate job.
6
The nationalization of House elections that you point out applies to the Senate as well, which means that if Democrats aim to take the Presidency and both houses of Congress in 2020, it is imperative that the Democratic presidential candidate be a centrist. A Democratic candidate perceived as overly progressive in the middle of the country might be able to cobble together an Electoral College majority, but will not be have coattails to cement moderate Democrats in conservative House seats and help elect a Democratic Senate. This is something Democratic voters need to pay attention to in the 2020 presidential primaries--it's about taking back the whole government, not just the White House.
1
A centrist lost last time. A Democratic socialist drew bigger crowds than Trump, and nearly wrested the nomination from Clinton. Many Trump voters say they would have voted for Bernie. Just 84,000 of them might have swung the College.
Given that progressive policies are, if named individually, popular among Americans by a large majority, what case is there for not campaigning on them? And isn’t that what centrism is all about?
1
One person's "gothcha procedural motion" is another person's legitimate amendment. I did not find the argument against supporting motions to recommit to be overwhelming. The agrument is that a lack of unity will discourage progressives in the lead up to 2020. Progressives are motivated enough by the fact that there is a Republican president, let alone one like Donald Trump. It's moderates who need to be motivated in 2020. If the Democrates run too liberal a candidate in 2020 who feeds the idea that the party is turning hard left then they lose again to Trump.
5
Contrary to the opinion of most NYTimes readers, "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" can attract enough of a subset of both Democrats and Republicans. Kasich and Hickenlooper as a team would win.
8
Not the opinion of the readership. A recent study measured that segment of the electorate at 4%.
Unfortunately for the Democratic Party, that 4% is disproportionately represented among the donordhip, enlightened wealthy people who nevertheless don’t want their taxes raised. That led to the rise of the neoliberals and the surrender of the legislative agenda to the Republicans. It is why we haven’t seen major social legislation since the 1960s.
It’s also why we keep hearing centrists matter.
@G - As a former "Rockefeller Republican," you are on the right track here.
Sounds like Pelosi is upset that our government representatives voted as if they were representing the districts the came from (and the reason they are now in office). It's so odd to me that this is thought to be a problem.
In reality, the problem for all Americans is what Pelosi is suggesting - to essentially ignore those you represent and "fall in line" and "be a team player" with the party.
Party line politics kill representative democracy. "Representative" is the key word. If our congressmen and women do not properly represent the people that elected them to office, we should ask ourselves, why are they even there?
5
@kz
I think you got Pelosi mixed up with good ole Mitch McConnell who rules his Senate with an iron fist.
Mitch is so intractable, he won't even allow a DISCUSSION of any legislation brought by Democratic House much less the idea of a vote.
Mitch McConnell, the very first day Obama took office:
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
Speaker John Boehner's plans for Obama’s agenda:
“We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.”
@kzAOC has threatened to run SDs against those Democratic Reps who won in districts that Trump won. Is she missing the fact that this will ruin the party and that the SDs are guaranteed to lose
I suggest that readers of this column take a look at this month's Rolling Stone cover and corresponding articles about the subjects. There is Nancy between three of the most progressive young new Democratic Congresswomen, and they look pretty darn happy to be together. The warning in this column is Pelosi better realize that the Democratic Party is getting younger and we're getting older, and their dreams are real no matter how pie-in-the-sky they may seem right now. The young progressive Democrats in Congress better realize that Pelosi has always got things done, even the most progressive, if somewhat flawed, new health care the country has seen since Medicare. Nancy can help the youngsters get what they want. Rolling Stone profiled them all, and did an excellent job. Parenthetically, as long as Democrats vote, the House may very well remain in Democratic hands. That's the kicker however.
1
Ah, the enthusiasm and idealism of youth.
The older generation was horrified in 1969 but we did change the conversation. Then we lost 5 out of 6 elections btw 1968 and 1988 by nominating candidates who were too far left.
I hate to think another generation has to learn the hard way that moving too far left means we'll lose more elections.
9
Times change. Before 1988 — heck, before 2016 — who besides Bernie Sanders was elected to national office as an avowed (Democratic) socialist?
The problem with the Democratic leadership is they still remember all to well Walter Mondale. Famously he promised to raise taxes and (correctly) said Reagan would too, but just wouldn’t admit it. Famously he lost by 49 states. He was the last Democratic presidential candidate to suggest a tax increase or any substantial policy to address any significant social problem.
We’ve had 40 years of flat-footed failure, of wage stagnation, of funneling money up, of rising costs to healthcare and daycare and education. From Democrats, 40 years of milquetoast proposals and marginal rights championing. 40 years of watching popular policies get short shrift, from gun control to universal healthcare to taxing the rich. 40 years of seeing the opposite happen of what the majority wants to see happen.
Many have decided if living in a decent country means being socialist, then I’m socialist. When that happens to enough voters changed times become changed elections.
1
@James K. Lowden I hear you. I am sympathetic.
But I am also a realist.
The social democrat thing is not going to fly in this environment.
Stop calling it socialism. Call it something more neutral.
1
If Democrats are going to get the supermajorities that are needed for meaningful reforms they will have to think beyond the voters who supported them in 2016, or even 2018. They should be going after the millions who do not vote because they don't see either party as representing them, or getting things done. This is not going to be done on "social" issues, which have been the mainstay of Republicans - that is they have relied on racism and bigotry, and minds are hard to change on these issues. Polls show that solid majorities support progressive economic proposals, so this is clearly the way to go. These proposals are mostly not "radical" - they are things that other countries already have or which the US formerly had. The Democratic office-holders and candidates should be able to agree on these things. Pelosi's job must be to steer the House toward these things while avoiding the rather doctrinal proposals that some Democrats advocate. Those proposals should not be quashed completely - they move the boundaries of what is acceptable. A strategy of relying on big-money donors and trickle-down economics is not going to win votes - Democrats definitely have to move away from this reliance.
10
@skeptonomist
How is your argument different from Schumer's when he said for every blue collar voter they lose, they will pick up two Republicans? You are saying the same thing using different words. Its ok to turn our back on our current voters because by doing so we will appeal to The Other. You are worse than a cell phone company chasing new subscribers. You will do just fine losing current voters. You will not do as well in inventing new ones. Doesn't work that way unless you mandate people to vote and then what is the point?
I really want Trump to be a private citizen in 2021. But! I think this clash The Left is having is a necessity to shake out the cobwebs. Since Bill Clinton was elected The Dems have always thought to win you had to talk like a Republican. It looks like the younger Dems really want a progressive party while the over 70 crowd running the party want to remain timid. I hope the youngsters keep their elder's feet to the fire. if you want younger voters to vote you can't keep serving milk and cookies.
337
At least the over 70 crowd comes out and votes for the Democratic Party while the younger crowd has one of the lowest turnout rates and 12% if the Bernie voters voted for Trump. Had they voted like the over 70 crowd did we wouldn’t be talking about President Trump and the young voters might have gotten some of the things they want
103
@Peggysmom Maybe I missed something so I will try again. If The Party want to get out younger voters they have to up their game... Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
77
@Steven McCain
That was great. Keep writing! The motley crew of Dem candidates have too many visions of the center being balanced.
Progressives have the stage of values.
33
As a grandmother of a teenager, I know these young people, voters now, are very concerned about the viability of the planet we are leaving them. They will vote for candidates who do not take fossil fuel money or war money. They know how to find out who funds which candidate. If the young decide to vote, any candidate who supports the war machine or taking more fossil fuel out of the ground will be voted out.
4
@Bev
They need to get out then on college campuses and start educating the youth. Maybe some high school science classes are a good start.
"moderates who flipped most of the 41 districts that went from red to blue in November."
"the ascendant progressives led by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, many of whom have proudly declared themselves democratic socialists,"
So the key for the Democrats to win is to offer up more moderate candidates.. Yet inexperienced Cortez wants the Party to go further to the left. She wants, she wants, she wants. To what. Lose.
God save us idealists like her who thinks she has all the answers.
14
Universal healthcare and a conversion to green energy aren’t idealistic. They’re obvious proven solutions.
Medicare hobbled as it is, is 20% more efficient than private insurers. The rest of the world enjoys national healthcare at an average 50% lower cost. And lives longer in the bargain.
Denmark already produces 40% of its electricity from wind turbines, up from 20% 10 years ago, on track for 100% in 10 years more. I estimate 16,000 modern wind turbines would suffice to power our 100 million households; at $1 million each, that’s $16 billion, or about one aircraft carrier.
Nothing idealistic about it, except a willingness to use the power of government for public good.
2
Just as the Democrats have their "moderates" and "progressives", the Republicans have THEIR "moderates" and "conservatives." The Republican speakers' and majority leaders' inability to control the two led to their loss of the House in 2018. There is a lesson there for the Democrats. As Ben Franklin said "if we don't all hang together we will all hang separately."
3
If I can quote or paraphrase Harry Truman “Whenever a Democrat tries to out-Republican a Republican. The Republican wins every time”.
That is exactly what has been happening for the last twenty five years, since Clinton (Bill) and the 1994 elections. These “new” Democrats made the Democratic Party weak and insignificant.
And Truman’s predecessor FDR wasn’t ashamed to inject a little socialism in order to save capitalism. He did it unabashedly and created some of the best things about this country to the present.
12
Older Democrats got Medicare and Medicaid passed, kept Social Security intact and desegregated the country. Progressives are moderates next to us. Having been through the battles, most of those who have been around the block have decided that the Progressive’s timing is bad. First you take back the Presidency and then you break out the full agenda.
Progressives aren’t as smart as they think they are.
7
I have read that it is within the power of the majority in the House to abolish the motion to recommit. If so, Speaker Pelosi should do it.
Republicans have little compunction in violating Congressional norms - ask Merrick Garland. Pelosi knows how to play hardball. I don't know why she is reluctant to do so in this matter.
If she doesn't, this problem will plague her for this entire Congress. The overwhelming majority of voters have very little interest in, or cognizance of, parliamentary maneuvers.
Do it, Nancy
“Liberals still “have to be reminded that there are simply not enough liberals out there to form a majority,” Jacobson added.”
Balderdash.
Read Tim Wu’s piece in the Times. Then tell me there isn’t a liberal majority on economic issues.
Social issues are where the real divide among Americans is, and it’s no shock that that’s where our bought and paid for representatives choose to gird for battle. Arguing about wedding cakes and bathrooms cost the rich nothing and keep people from discussing the economic issues that unify most Americans.
I expect the distractions to continue.
9
It is ludicrous to think you have to craft a message directly at one demographic at the expensive of other demographics. Reagan made Liberal a dirty word and since then being called a Liberal has made The Left panic. All the disparate groups in America are never going to love each other but they all have things in common. Wouldn't it be novel if someone came along with a message that united and conquered as opposed to the current playbook? All people regardless of whose base they are in want similar things for their families and the country.
3
Both the far right and the far left are obsessed with identity politics. The rest of us just want to live in peace.
18
@Amy
This should be the first times pick comment
2
This may be an oversimplification of the political process and it's myriad formulations, but the overarching important fact that predominates over everything else is: Trump must be defeated.
Center left, right, progressive, conservative, whatever; stop with the parsing and divisive analysis and focus on the issue at hand. Concentrate on what most Americans are concerned about: health care, climate change, jobs/training, infrastructure, and oversight (cleanse the stench of this WH). All Democratic and sane minded Republicans should be on board to the concept of good governance and to be rid of the biggest threat to our Constitution, Trump. Stay focused.
This makes me remember yet again Will Rogers statement about Democrats -- “I am not a member of any organized political party — I am a Democrat.” True then, true now.
3
Pelosi's ire is the inevitable result of a party without a discernible platform.
This is driven by the breadth of interests at the Democratic table...as well as the decision of the DNC to butt out of local races in the aftermath of the Clinton/Wasserman election debacle of 2016.
The one issue, in my view, that Dems need to immediately address - real details and legislation please - is immigration reform. Indeed, moderate Dems that abandoned gun legislation described in this piece, are simply reflecting the view of their voters who desperately want immigration laws applied to illegal immigrants and the citizens that harbor/exploit them. If this means additional resources to handle asylum seekers...then so be it...and make that part of a comprehensive platform.
Absent real talking points about immigration, Dems will lose in 2020. The Dems current duplicity in this issue is a barn door that Trump and his xenophobic cronies will waltz through.
6
The issue here, whether or not to report undocumented aliens who try to buy weapons, isn't a left-right issue. Our politics are no longer divided between the left (support for working people) and the right (support for the ownership class). They are more and more divided between brown and white.
We are becoming an ethnocracy, a country in which a coalition of minorities (together with sympathetic whites) is fighting to advance its interests with more and more openly expressed hostility towards a majority that is fighting back, also with more and more openly expressed hostility.
If we can't get both parties turned back to promoting competing visions of a better functioning economy that maximizes the rewards for every citizen, this is just going to get uglier and uglier.
Turning a blind eye to potentially lawless people trying to buy guns is NOT a social justice issue, and our party should not try to pretend it is. We should be fighting for a better, more equitable society, not just automatically lining up behind any policy supported by people who look like we do.
6
The Republicans are bad enough. I had high hopes for the Democrats to bring a return to sanity and centrism.
But the likes of AOC, Omar, and Tlaib (and the majority of presidential candidates) are going to send the Party over the left side of the cliff.
5
The Democratic candidates ought to run on:
Fixing Healthcare
Ending Corruption
Expanding and protecting the vote
Fixing Global Warming
Restoring respect for the U.S. and multilateral cooperation with our traditional allies
Tax policy reform that makes people earning over $1million per year and/or owning more than $50 million in assets
Candidates ought not run as “socialists”, or “Green New Dealers”, nor should they talk about “Medicare For All”. They ought to simply ask voters whether they or Donald Trump should be trusted to fix our many problems?
When pressed on “socialism”, the “Green New Deal”, or “Medicare for All”—they should talk about, say, a carbon tax, or the public option buy in as specific ideas they favor. As for “socialism”—they need only point out that in the past, Republicans called SS and Medicare socialism, and that the word has been rendered meaningless by 75 years of scare tactics. They ought to be saying that the American people aren’t interested philisophy and intellectual symposiums—they just want to know what steps will be taken to solve problems they face.
6
In other words, advantage GOP. One problem with a “big tent” party: if not securely tied down, chances are it will get blown away in raging storm. Well, winds are picking up and the storm is coming. Judging from this article and reports from the Dem Congressional caucus, the big tent already is shuddering.
1
The media focuses on loud, aggressive and sensationalist voices.
Trump, Omar and AOC are perfect subjects because they make grandiose and controversial proclamations about subjects they know little about.
Most Americans are reasonable people and fall somewhere in the middle.
Don't let the lunatics run the asylum.
5
I rather like the fact that the freshmen moderate Dems voted their district. I've felt for many years that too many GOP politicians are too focused on voting as a block, rather than learning about the pros and cons of each issue, then voting for what makes the nation and their district better. If more GOP reps would have the courage the moderate Dems showed, Congress would be more functional and well-respected. That said, ALL the Dems have to understand the need for party unity on occaision.
This quote from the article says it all:
"Old-timers like me remember the 40-year span during which Democrats maintained control of the House through a coalition of liberals, moderates and even a few conservatives,” Gary Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California-San Diego, recalled in an email. “They did so by tolerating defections if that was the price of re-election: ‘Vote your district first’.” Liberals still “have to be reminded that there are simply not enough liberals out there to form a majority,” Jacobson added."
1
Nancy and Chuck don't have to cave to anybody. Nor should they.
Neither, however, should they continue down this bizarre road of publicly shushing their freshman members, who have brought excitement and vitality to a long moribund, Republican lite Democrat party.
For their part, freshman like AOC would be wise to cease couching their policy goals in giddily provocative Socialist Democrat terms and be smart enough, instead, to explain in detail the reasoning behind and the obvious benefits of those goals, particularly as they relate to the forlorn denizens of flyover country, who by now must realize Trump gets them no closer to their getting their own needs met.
The language, the politics, the fancy and frightening title Socialist may be important to these new legislators, but they are frightening and irrelevant for many of the people they are intended to help.
As much as anything this hoo-hah is all about presentation, a very low hill for Democrats to trade for another four years of what we have now. They can't possibly be that foolish...I hope.
Everybody needs to grow up. Democrats say they want to lead. Here's their best, and probably theironly, chance to show they can.
1
This assessment is concerning because is could mean a 2nd term for the Bully in Chief in the White House. Troubling too is that there is little reference to the idea of voting for what a representative holds is best for the country...only the party.
2
Democrats must first unsure they can win in 2020 regardless of what is going on between Moderates or Progressives, once again they are failing to recognize that when it comes down to it the next election is so about the Supreme Court and the Federal judiciary! Nothing is more, everything else is less! Do not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!
What I don’t like is that AOC has threatened to run SDs against the Reps who won in Trump districts. Not only will DSs lose in these districts but they will help to destroy the party. At first I found AOC very spirited and worthwhile reading about eventhough she is too far left for me but now as she responds to everything just like DT does I find her irritating
5
The last time Pelosi was House Speaker, her caucus had 43 democrats from Bush/McCain districts (aka Blue Dogs). They were wiped out by the Tea Party wave of 2010.
Now, there’s only 14 democrats from trump districts.
Pelosi’s majority is much more cohesive and safer than in 2009.
This article is nonsensical.
1
Mr. Edsall,
How much does Nancy Pelosi need to WORRY about a Left-Center Split?
Answer:
As much as she wants.
1
I regard myself as far-left of center, going so far as to say I'm a social democrat rather than just a Democrat. In primaries and caucuses, I'll vote accordingly. In the general election, however, the Democratic nominee will receive my vote. Full stop.
3
Red districts aren’t going to vote for a Democratic that is actually Republican-lite when they can just vote for the Republican. Progressive Democratic policies are popular even in red districts. Democratic candidates have to clearly explain what they stand for and how their policies will benefit their constituents.
1
A perfect example of the Democrats difficulty holding their majority in the House is "Medicare for All". I'm in favor of Medicare for All but theres 170 million people in this country that get their insurance from their employer and according to polls about 70% of those folks are happy with their insurance. Any sweeping change for some kind of nationalized health care is going to be extremely difficult to do even if the Democrats take back the Senate (which won't be easy and could take years) and win back the presidency. A lot of young people who justifiably want radical change on a whole host of issues are in for a very unfortunate wake up call because the Democratic Party is much more moderate and cautious than they realize.
1
Translation:
The Democrats occupy a big, diverse tent with a lot of opinions that result in bickering and messiness in policy proposal. The Republicans occupy a little cubbyhole of "I me mine" and augment the rich.
Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether the Democrats should actually be two (or more) parties, there is much to be said, at least in terms of winning elections in less diverse areas, for being a party of disciplined, monolithic messaging, if only because the average voter has trouble dealing with more than one sound bite at a time; complex debates make many people's heads hurt.
Which is why Democrats, whatever their actual positions on various proposals, need to learn how to get their messaging down to a nice digestible simplicity. A good slogan goes a long way, and Republicans have invariably been better at that ("I like Ike", "The Silent Majority", "Morning in America"). One would think though, that Democrats have enough contacts in the creative industries to come up with something better than Green New Deal, which smacks a lot of people as a retread.
1
Although I had to tell my draft board, because I was being honest, that I was not opposed to all wars, just the Vietnam War, I applied to be a conscientious objector in 1970.
I knew that what I was saying might jeopardize that designation, and that the outcome might be prison, but I was, at the time, and still am, something that seems quaint these days. That is, I was a liberal.
Liberals seem to be a dying breed. Liberals used to be people who were not herd animals. They didn't just adhere to certain beliefs because everybody else did. They could examine issues independently, gathering data, listening to arguments pro and con. Just because other liberally minded people believed something was no justification for believing it yourself.
So I could believe the Vietnam War was immoral but WWII was moral.
Reporting undocumented immigrants who try to buy guns seems to be a very reasonable idea. But the Democratic Party, trying to enforce its herd mentality instead of its liberal tradition slams the Democrats who see the logic in this (and the irony, as those same Democrats have adapted a herd mentality when it comes to gun control in general).
You can believe that these undocumented immigrants should be reported AND in giving a path to citizenship for Dreamers. That's how a liberal thinks.
Liberals these days are conservatives in sheep's clothing. They, like Republicans, have a multiple choice test you have to pass in order to be seen as a decent human being.
8
The split among Democrats is NOT between center-left and far-left, as Edsall and many readers argue. That is an outdated taxonomy. The real division is between those who espouse economic issues that are important to most American families, and those who continue to push "identity" issues important to urban liberals, issues concerning race and gender.
It is also a split between those in the Party who want to win in 2020 so they can implement progressive policies, and those who are simply spoiling for a fight.
Democrats cannot win the Electoral College with votes from urban liberals, alone. They need broad geographic support to win the White House. That is widely understood by political professionals of every stripe.
To that end, Democrats must focus on kitchen-table issues that affect most American families, regardless of color, and put divisive identity issues aside, at least for now. What are those kitchen-table issues? Jobs, wages, taxes, retirement security, health care, child care, children's education, the opioid crisis, and climate change. These are the most prominent. They broadly fall under the heading of "economic" issues.
If Dems want to win the White House in 2020, they have to play down the identity issues that divide Americans, and play up the economic issues that unite Americans.
It’s not that those identity issues aren't important. It’s just that winning the Presidency and saving our democracy are MORE important. And economic issues are the key.
49
@Ron Cohen: My experience of rural and small town voters is that they are not interested in any issues that don't affect them directly. They may not know any people of color, and they may *think* that they don't know any GLBT people, but they sure are interested in the economic devastation that their home areas have experienced in the past forty years.
The Republicans have met the neoliberal Democrats' emphasis on social issues with staunch lip-service to "traditional values," which makes the low-information voter think, "Well, the Republicans aren't doing anything for me economically, but at least they share my values."
I have long felt that the Dems began to lose ground in rural areas when they failed even to make any proposals to alleviate the farm crisis of the early 1980s. The Democrats still had a majority in Congress, and even if Reagan had vetoed something like low-interest debt consolidation for distressed farmers, the Democrats' proposing it would have been a signal, but no, they did nothing.
6
@Ron Cohen
Exactly right!
1
Thank you for the detailed analysis, I hope all democrats in office are reading this, and the cited material with the necessary seriousness. The points you make are sobering.
The anti-Trump wave is apparent from the absence of swings (Winning Against the Grain figure). Multiple explanations exist, but one of them is decidedly not the under-the surface desire, anger, attitude favoring a socialist nation led by very young, inexperienced, firebrands with currency in their local precincts (e.g., Cortez, Tlaib). Under-the surface desire for a white christian nation has united the republicans because they know that it overwhelmingly unites their voters. Socialism and government control does not unite democrats.
Pro Trump and anti Trump are symmetrical forces - midterms suggesting the latter squeaked through. Pro Trump as ethnic nationalism is not symmetrical to metro-based socialism; the latter overwhelmingly wins everywhere but metro.
Rein in and slightly muzzle Madams Cortez and Tlaib, Madam Pelosi. They are hurting our chances by not just producing daily material for Fox and Limbaugh to demagogue over, it is concerning centrists everywhere.
4
@Kalidan
Calming down Tlaib I agree with. AOC and her crowd actually have proposed the Green New Deal. Like Medicare for All, the GND is really a statement of a goal that people can rally around - or oppose. While the details are still amorphous the idea of major policy changes based on the reality of climate change is important.
I find myself wondering what Edsall and the analysts on whom he draws consider "centrist." If Democrats can only win in Republican leaning districts by staking out positions best characterized as "Republican Lite," just what good is a Democratic majority in the House or Senate? Clinton tacked to the right and won elections, but at the cost of furthering the neo-liberal agenda. And what did "ending welfare as we know it" and downsizing the regulatory state get us? Donald Trump, who seized the populist mantle by stoking the electorate's fears and frustrations. The Republicans are the party of No. They are defined by what they oppose. But the problems our nation confronts cry out for solutions. The Democrats need to know what they are for. And they need to be able to sell their agenda to the voters, even in Republican leaning districts. Otherwise, nothing will ever change.
3
If you get out of your bubble and look at any electoral map you will see huge swaths of Red. National polls of support for ideas mean Nothing. The House and Electoral College are local. To win the House and Presidency you need to win districts and States. This means a big tent and some centrists in the Red middle of the country. It doesn't matter if 70% of people in polls are receptive to Medicare For All, 1 that support drops to below 50% if you add that it means you will lose you private insurance, 2 You still need to win 50% of congressional districts and 50% of Electoral votes.
6
Once again the Democrats work hard to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Do they not read poll results? The American people are open to a public option, not a wholesale move to single payer Medicare. They are not open to socialism, however it is defined. But they are open to fixing our corrupt election system and taxing those with more. Focus on that, as the Dems did in the 2018 election (so long ago, so many lessons forgotten!), and Donald Trump will be easily run out of Washington. Otherwise...I shudder to think of what he can destroy with eight years to do it.
5
What we have here, are inconvenient, empiric facts.
These facts mirror the NYTimes comments section discussions, highlighting how we got Weasel 45* - because we Progressive Dems let 'the perfect be the enemy of the good', which resulted in a 77,000 vote GOP'er margin in 3 states giving the 2018 Electoral College to 'Individual -1'.
In 2018, the swing voters in the 40+ districts that are actually competitive out of the 435 seats, voted out those GOP'ers who had been voting against their constituents' interests for 2 years.
Progressives have to accept, that in order to have the power of subpoena, Congressional investigation, and oversight of the Executive Branch, they must highlight and support the 41 seats which gave Dems the majority.
Inconvenient, empiric fact.
8
@R. Law - Obviously should be '2016 Electoral College'.
The moderates who won in Republican districts did it by promising the voters they would represent them, not the Elite of the Democratic Party. Some of them even went so far as to promise they would not support her for Speaker. Almost all of those who made that promise broke it already. But that's ok because party loyalty is more important and when you lose in 2020 you are well practiced at blaming it all on Russia.
4
It is true that the GOP has done well with its gerrymandered districts and Faux News to control politics at the most levels. This is all the more reason that Democrats need to attack issues and not Republicans themselves. Dems can still succeed, even with a politically and ethnically diverse coalition, but they need to focus on issues that are backed by statistics and other evidence. We cannot see Dems react in anger to Republicans and we need new Congressional Dems to understand that successful US politics is about compromise, not ideological purity.
3
Once again I completely agree with Bruce Rozenblit's earlier comment. The stakes are now existential in nature, particularly when it comes to climate, but also for the survival of our nation in the face of extreme wealth disparity. We are rapidly leaving the space in which strictly politics for the sake of politics is enough. If Democrats cannot make the strong case for change to their constituents, including those in "swing" districts, retaining their seats so as to effect vital change, well, nothing will matter in a decade or two anyway. This idea that in certain districts Democrats must position themselves as Republican Lite will not get it done. It's time to stand for something, and firmly against some things, and let the chips fall where they may. So-called triangulation is what got us into this mess in the first place. Maybe when the stakes weren't so high such political "pragmatism" made sense, but no longer. We have much to do, together, or we'll die together. And that includes self-styled "conservatives", whether they like to admit it or not. That's the choice.
5
America has two parties, the rich corporate branch of Wall Street verses the party of and for the people. As soon as the country realizes this, our Democracy will be restored, everything rests with and on this division. There is no position for the centerist, it is much too late for them. There are no true Republicans fighting Communism any longer, simply not the belief they held in their history. If we recognize this we will see there is no center. Most Democrats realize this and yet its difficult to get the money changers out of the party.
If we vote progressive with and for the people, we can reach a common sense approach to government. If you vote center, you will have a Republican leaning President or a Republican President.
Not a Democracy.
The only people really afraid of the progressives are the K street, Wall Street, Billionaires.
4
As per usual, the media starts running stories and then elides its responsibility in crafting the narrative. There is enormous energy on the progressive side and we need progressive policies for our national benefit. People who hear about "socialism" and find it frightening are going to be frightened by Fox news caricatures of Democratic policies no matter what they are. The progressives are right and the moderates need to go home and explain what the progressive policies will do; they need to counter the media and Republican constructed narratives. That's why electing them matters, to start to change the perception in places where there had been no countervailing understanding to the Republicans.
3
@Summer
Then maybe they should start leading by example? When you can hold one up who does let me know. And for the record, buying carbon offsets doesn't count.
Curious to know if or to what extent gerrymandering is a factor affecting the outcome. It certainly is a factor determining which way gerrymandered districts lean.
4
What a great summary of the strategic challenges facing the Democratic Party. Interesting how extensive media coverage for the progressive wing distorts the actual balance between progressives and moderates. Let’s see how Demo leadership can harness this energy and not lose the ‘loaned’ split vote from Republican leaning districts.
3
The last 10 years show what happens when the Moderates are put to the sword.The Republicans control the House and we get a Ryan and the Hastert Rule. It is critically important that we retain the House because the chances of regaining the Senate are bot great.
30 states voted for Trump,27 by wide margins. That puts the default numbers of Republican senators above 50.
Obviously, the GOP can win they White House.
So, if we lose the House we are reduced to the Filibuster in the Senate and that can be killed at any time.
If we go Left, the GOP wins. It is just that simple.
5
"[T]he number of Democrats and Republicans representing districts that lean to the opposite party has fallen from 132 in 1974 to fewer than 23 in 2018".
The explanation is not that fewer voters are willing to split tickets. It's that more districts are gerrymandered and safe. Fewer districts are competitive.
A strong majority of voters favor increasing taxes on ultra wealthy Medicare for All and other parts of the Green New Deal.
A referendum to stop gerrymandering in Michigan is being thwarted by a Republican legislature.
Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team face determined opposition from Republicans. They got blindsided and took a hit on the Motion to Recommit. They will learn to call and run better plays.
The real conflict is not between the left and center factions of the Democratic Party. It is between the Democrats and the Republicans. The worst thing the House Democrats can do is to lose sight of the real conflict going into 2020.
November 3, 2020.
16
Ultimately, the super majority of moderates in the nation will find there is no one left to represent them. When did newly elected congress members start chastising other new members for doing precisely what they were elected to do?The favorable Trump effect realized in the midterms will be short lived if the Democratic Party continues to allow the fringe to be the new face of the party. The left fringe will allow Republicans to reclaim those moderate seats and possibly burden the nation with four more years of Trump. What the new members fail to realize is that the Green New Deal is a fantasy akin to a socialist president. Both will never come to pass but it is a gift to Republicans that will keep giving.
9
@dudley thompson
As a 65 year old career center left Democrat (aside from my radical earlier years), and as an American Jew, I very much agree that the "fringe" has been given out sized and unearned influence that is injurious to the party's near future. It is very difficult for this old time "liberal" to accept the anti-Semitism, incivility, and immaturity of these newcomers. I am not alone, I am sure. At this point in time, unfortunately, I have no other place to be, but Pelosi had better consider who really makes up the Democratic voting base across the country, and I will tell you, it is not college students.
3
I would say, "how much does the new left have to worry about Nancy Pelosi?" She is implacably committed to the status quo regarding the Green New Deal and Medicare for all, and she has held onto her power for the next four years. That's four years of climate warming and unaffordable healthcare as we submit to the fossil fuel industry and the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.
If Trump should be re-elected it will amount to the same thing.
The progressives have the virtue of being right, if right means looking out for the common people. And we don't have the luxury of time to coddle pragmatists like Pelosi. We either flip the congress and enact environmental legislation now, or it will be too late.
This calls for a progressive in the white house like Sanders, Warren or possibly Sherrod Brown or Jay Inslee. We need a revolution and we need it now.
4
The media's coverage of public policy mirrors its coverage of elections: it focuses almost entirely on (largely subjective) perceptions about who seems to be winning this horse race at a given moment.
Mr. Edsall's opinion piece is arguably better than most, which might simply mean that I for one find his reasoning more or less persuasive. That said, we all need a little fresh air. The back room atmosphere here is stale and stuffy and filled with smoke, and the walls are lined with mirrors.
We need our best journalists to do more than give us their opinions about the strategies and tactics of power politics.
We need their help in understanding the most trenchant problems facing us today and our best options for dealing with them.
6
Whatever happened to the idea that congresspeople represent their constituents? If the majority of their constituency is centrist, that is what they should represent. If the majority of their constituency is progressive, that is what they should represent. That puts the onus where it should be: on ground level. Citizens must win the case for their positions among their peers, not expect congresspeople to represent views unsupported by the majority of their constituents.
15
Pelosi and the "centrist" Dems had their chance in '08 when they controlled Congress and the Presidency. Their policies led to the loss of Congress and the Presidency. It is foolish to think that resurrecting the same playbook will lead to a different result. It is foolish to think trying to get Republicans on board will work.
We need to jettison the labels--left, center, right--and talk policies. If you are against Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, Debt free higher education, a living wage and benefits, etc., then it is on you to come up with policies that will address the rampant income/wealth inequality in our country, as well as climate change.
The status quo is not working.
24
The Democratic Caucus will always have diverse voices, but let's remember that we can only legislate progressive policies if we are in the majority. We need to give Americans a reason to support Democrates and avoid divisive rhetoric.
Our energies and strategy should focus on highlighting the Republicans hypocrisy and failed agenda during the past two years.
If we loose the House and the Presidency in 2020 we will be left with progressive ideas that will never see the light of day.
7
“We are either a team or we’re not, and we have to make that decision,” she declared at the Democratic caucus meeting. “This is not a day at the beach. This is the Congress of the United States.”
Why is it that politicians on both sides of the aisle want to "recommit"? Should they not concern themselves with what is good for the country, and, not what is good for the party?
4
This issue has been around since the birth of our nation.
The greatest example of this both in gravity of the situation and perfection in leadership were the two issues Lincoln was faced with, preservation of democracy and the union and abolition of slavery with the 13th amendment.
There were basically three factions involved re the states that stayed in the union, border slave states, conservative republicans (that Lincoln was a technical member of) and radical republicans.
He easily convinced the radicals to come to his thinking (who were they gonna vote for Jeff Davis?), he had the conservatives in his bad pocket but the border state union democrat types were harder to convince but he skillfully got them over to his side.
The Democrats should do the same thing. Nominate a moderate that can easily get the far left but concentrate on getting independents and moderate republicans that were lost to Trump in 2016.
5
This article paints a grim picture for Democrats unless the party can continue to be a big tent for discussion and progressive ideals. The main thing that separates us from the Republican Party is toleration for thoughts and opinions, something the Trump monolith has not a clue. It is a deep irony that a country established on democratic ideals of open mindedness that it could be destroyed by Trumpian authoritarianism whose main goal is to exploit that very open mindedness. It is up to us as democrats to exhibit our ability to work together or let our democracy fall. Liberals and moderates have more that unites us than separates us. We can not desert each other in the face of the Republican attempt to have us ruled by their cult of authoritarianism..
4
@just Robert - "The main thing that separates us from the Republican Party is toleration for thoughts and opinions.."
Tell that to the college students who scream and shout at the likes of Ann Coulter and Ben Shapiro when they're invited to speak on campus. Not a good look for the "toleration for thoughts and opinions."
3
The single greatest reason for the success of Republicans in elections, getting reactionary judges and industry shills appointed to courts, cabinets and agency leadership positions is their massively effective propaganda dissemination and character assassination machine Fox, that works in a well-oiled, lock-step, closed-loop feedback mechanism with Republican strategists and officeholders to scapegoat and demonize Democrats, weaponize buzzwords, dominate the news cycle, control the public debate, all with the ultimate goal of exploiting the ignorance and prejudices of voters to con them into voting for charlatan Republicans against their own best interests.
For Democrats to be a successful force going forward it isn't enough to stand for what is sane and just, and sit back and expect virtue to carry the day, but they must stand up toe-to-toe to the Republicans every day, counter their propaganda, lies, and divide and conquer tactics in real time, make sure the Democrat message is disseminated loudly, clearly and widely, educate voters, open the eyes of the voters the Republicans have conned to how they are being used and exploited, and not allow the Republicans to continue to define the public debate.
16
I'm a lifelong democrat. I will not be voting for any presidential candidate who takes donations from Wall Street, K Street, etc.
Be warned, DNC, that I represent millions of other democratic voters. We are fed up with politicians who represent big money interests, rather than American citizens.
This includes you, Joe Biden.
118
@SalinasPhil it's stances like yours that will usher in another four years of the Trump Family. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Vote Blue, no matter who.
20
@Glen
"Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good"
Nice try - it is centrist DNC incrementalism like this sentiment that kept voters home which brought us Trump.
6
@SalinasPhil
"Be warned, DNC, that I represent millions of other democratic voters. "
You represent at least this Independent too, and no doubt many, many others. In fact, the donor-fueled Dems may be why so many of these Indies aren't Dems in the first place.
6
“First, Democrats are more ideologically diverse than Republicans. Second, Democratic Party leaders are more divided on strategy than Republicans.”
Man, does this depress me. All I can think of was, a bunch of Joe Mansions in the House facing reelection every two years, forced to adopt policies that don't "offend" Republicans.
After reading this, I see it's indeed possible that Dems will lose their majority given the popularity of DJT within his party. I keep reading the GOP Is shrinking its base, but if the Dems end up splitting their caucus, watch out: it will weaken a party that can ill afford it against a cohesive, power-hungry, gerrymander-loving GOP.
Polls indicate a majority of this nation is deeply dissatisfied with our current president. But unless Democrats wake up to the reality that "all politics are local" no longer applies, their grip on the House is tenuous at best, forget the Senate, or wave goodbye to the White House any time soon.
5
If I am reading correctly what 26 Democrats voted for, then I agree that the background checks that show that Illegal Immigrants cannot have guns makes sense.
It further follows that Pelosi can bring to the floor a Gun Reform Bill that ensures everyone who wants to buy a gun needs to have a background check and a 7 day waiting period. It is the opportunity of a lifetime to show whether or not Republicans are for sensible Gun Reform. Most Americans are for background checks on anyone purchasing a gun from any source. Republicans will be in danger if they do not vote for sensible Gun Reform. There will be no doubt then that the Republicans are owned outright by the NRA.
Secondly, if the press would stop putting labels on all of those
programs that will improve the lot of most Americans, it will go a long way to stop the divisiveness.
Social policy is not the same as being a true Socialist. And there is nothing wrong with being a Progressive. If it weren't for Progressives in the Political or Corporate world we would have not cars, trains, airplanes, Internet. No Social Security, CHIP, Voting Rights or choice of Religion.
It is time to stop the name calling. Of course the problem is that our fearless leader is the number one name caller and some follow the leader mindlessly.
Nancy Pelosi will prevail. Mitch McConnell is on his way out within the next two years.
People want Progress and sensible solutions to some very serious issues
42
@Jean - as to:
"I agree that the background checks that show that Illegal Immigrants cannot have guns makes sense. "
Please go and look at the EXISTING federal form 4473 -- the form everyone must fill out for the background check. Look at line
k. Are you an Illegal alien? (check yes or no)
If an illegal alien checks "no" to this line and are caught for it (and there's a good chance they will be) that is already punishable by up to 10 years in prison, followed by deportation.
How many illegal aliens are stupid enough to check yes and turn in the form? If they do, they don't get a gun.
This whole kerfluffle was a Republican stunt to bamboozle people like you into thinking "oh, those illegal aliens can just walk in and buy a gun legally right now" ... and you bit.
The only possible thing that Republican amendment could do is forward 4473 forms submitted by idiots who checked "yes" to ICE or possibly the BATF.
How many such idiots do you think there are? What priority do you think ICE or BATF places on them, vs others?
And why would anyone think that a form that was checked "yes" on this line would have real information about who they are, where they live, etc?
The biggest weakness of the NIC 4473 process is that in fact gun dealers have no legal obligation to check the ID of people submitting a 4473, nor are there clear standards for what IDs are acceptable.
I'm tired of hearing how the Progressives are ruining the Democratic Party and we need more "centrism." Progressives are not responsible for the right wing conservative economic trend that has resulted in lower taxes for the rich and rising inequality in favor of billionaires over the past 40 years. The Progressives are not responsible for Donald Trump--that you have can your neoliberal Democrats, such as Pelosi, Obama, and the Clintons. The Party needs to embrace something beyond identity politics. They need a strong robust economic and domestic platform. They Progressive side is the only side (out of both Republicans and Democrats) that are doing this--and this scares them both.
50
The progressive’s are absolutley responsible for Donald Trump - it’s their rigid elitism that creates an enviornment for someone like that to get elected. Sometimes you have to play along to make change in the long run.
3
@Bret
"The Party needs to embrace something beyond identity politics."
Right. It's a wedge issue that will re-elect Trump. Please, Dems, to win in 2020, bread-and-butter issues only.
4
House members are elected to serve their districts first, not their party - and do you think they're elected by only Democratic voters? And they're up for re-election every two years. The House Speaker is from a politically niche district, and has a lot of big money corporate donors to answer to. Her agend is not necessarily the agenda of those who voted Democratic across the country. May i remind the Speaker and her party that she got the votes she wanted back in '08-'10. And lost the house for the next 4 elections in a row.
6
I have the misfortune of living in NW PA, the gateway to the Rust Belt, and this analysis is spot on. I'm about 50 miles north of Conor Lamb's district and he is fairly moderate, he said he would not vote for Nancy Pelosi for speaker! Democratic Socialism is not going to work in this part of PA.
The Right will continue to use Rep. Ocasio-Cortes and Rep. Omar as a cudgel to continue to paint the Left as unhinged and "socialist". I just wish there was some way to play down the coverage of the new Democratic members who are representative of their districts but not necessarily the rest of the party. I might support them, but my neighbors won't. And Trump will get re-elected. Perish the thought.
45
@Marylouise
But--to be honest--is there anything that will convince the people you talk about to vote Democrat? I mean this sounds like the Fox News dreamland.
2
@Marylouise: Where is the Democratic counter-offensive to these slanders? I don't see it. Since the 1980s, the Democrats have allowed the Republicans to flood the AM radio spectrum, and then Fox News and more recently the internet, with lies and hatred, and they have done nothing about it. Where was their media campaign?
2
United we stand, Democrats, and divided we fall. And with our division during the first election of Donald Trump, we've seen how far we can fall - with two generations long Supreme Court appointments so far, and the hundred plus dogma-driven alt-right federal judges he is appointing committed to overthrowing our rights for decades.
Fight clean and hard for your candidate through the primaries, and then get behind the Democratic nominee for president, regardless of who wins the nomination - with a Democrat in office in 2020, voting rights will be restored to individuals and Citizens United will be overturned to ensure that all voices in the party are heard. Unify to restore the power of our vote, and the power of our voices.
37
@common sense advocate Common Sense indeed! Thank you.
Two points:
First, it's for the reasons cited in this editorial that the House is actually voting today on the resolution condemning Ilhan Omar over her anti-AIPAC comments. The moderates and leadership are angry they have to field questions from their constituents about "anti-Semitism," echoing or perhaps anticipating the right-wing talking point. They want to suppress this kind of speech since it can be characterized as divisive, and Israel is not a priority for anyone. I agree with that sentiment, but not the resolution. It's a battle for another day, and must be addressed systemically.
Second, there is no far left in this country. That is a right-wing characterization that many Democrats have adopted. There is a far right (the GOP) and a centrist party (the Democrats), which spans from center-left (Sanders) to center-right (Obama). The center left is only referred to as "far left" because the GOP has moved so far right over the last few decades.
Democrats would be wise not to continue their failed policy of shifting to the right and instead embrace the left-leaning policies that those in their mid-30s and younger embrace. The reason many in that age group have tuned out and not voted in previous elections is because they are tired of being ignored, scolded, and patronized. The excitement from them around candidates like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders is evidence of that. This is a perception shift that won't happen overnight but is important to recognize.
311
@Matthew Ratzloff
For decades, social scientists have been studying the reasons why young people don’t vote in larger numbers. It’s simplistic to ascribe it to a single reason. One could just as easily say it’s because young people are waiting longer to get married, buy homes, have children, etc., so don’t feel as though they have a stake in policy outcomes compared to older generations.
On the issues that study after study indicate are important to young voters—climate change, immigration, marriage equality, even the legalization of marijuana—it’s ridiculous to suggest that there is no daylight between Democrats and Republicans, even centrist Democrats.
16
@Matthew Ratzloff
Bernie Sanders is Center/Left? Maybe in the lobby during intermission at the Micheal Moore film festival in Greenwich Village.
19
@Ken Stabler
On his "socialist" rhetoric, you are right. (Personally, that's what annoys me about Bernie.) But on actual policy, Bernie is a very moderate New Dealer and a liberal Fair Dealer. Viewed historically, that's where his positions lie, including, most recently on foreign policy. (You might have a another look at Roosevelt's Four Freedoms Address, which listed, after all, our reasons for fighting in WWII.)
Similarly, you might look at the polling on every single issue including taxing the rich more and fighting global warming. Even Republicans support all of this overwhelmingly.
So yes, Sanders plays into the hands of Republicans, who are bent as ever on debasing the conversation with snotty little talking points and slogans rather than assuming anything like the gravitas that our perilous moment requires.
But @Matthew Ratzloff is right on the merits.
34
This piece makes the case for moderates like Hickenlooper to be in the race for 2020.
It's pretty clear that in places like Iowa and NH, Hickenlooper will be a strong caucus and primary candidate, an important advantage for any presidential contender.
Much of the Democratic race may come down to Senator Bernie Sanders and Governor John Hickenlooper as the leaders of the left and center to voters.
The phenomenon of pulling enough independents and center Republicans into voting for a Democratic candidate is unlikely with many of left leaning candidates, and more likely with a centrist.
5
Most moderate Democrats eventually lose to Republicans. The seat s lost until the Republicans go extreme to the right, like Donald Trump’s extreme behavior or embracing policies that lead to an economic crash. From 1945 to present, with rare exception, the Democrats held the House. In 1995 the Republicans began to hold the House. This can be associated with loss of good jobs and the loss of unions in America. Since 1995 the Democrats have held the House for 3 sessions and Republicans have held it for 10. As far as I can see, there is no ‘strategy’ for Democrats to hold their House seats. Democrats holding their House seats are in safe districts. Everyone faulting progressives policies causing centrists Democrats to lose their seats is guessing. The Republicans are promoting policies that destroy the middle class. Why shouldn’t Democrats take a chance on fighting loudly and proudly for policies that help people. We will return to ‘centrist’ politics when there is growing vibrant middle class.
31
@Mark
Spot on!
1
Immediately, the old Will Rogers quote comes to mind: I'm not a member of any organized political party ... I'm a Democrat. True then and true now.
13
Our voting habits may be static, but our political climate is shifting. Two years ago, Medicare for all was pipe dream being spouted by a fringe candidate. Now, it's a matter of serious policy discussion. Climate change was dismissed by millions as just a unsubstantiated political ploy. Now, after a series of devastating hurricanes, massive floods, droughts and forest fires, the non believers are beginning to take notice that there is something going on. Ten years ago, Obamacare was the end of liberty and now millions can't live without it, literally.
Point being that you have to push hard to the left to get to the center. Politics is like negotiating a price. One party goes high, the other goes low and they usually meet in the middle.
Much of the general public has no clue about these critical issues because they have no good information to work with. That is ultimately their fault because the information is out there, they just don't access it. But by pushing hard, that forces the good information out into the public's view. A hard push forces the issue and compels doubters to take another look.
So basically, run for office to actually do something instead of worrying about getting reelected as soon as you walk through the door. Nothing succeeds like success. If people's lives are improved, if they can see a pathway to a better life, they will vote to reelect.
208
@Bruce Rozenblit
"Point being that you have to push hard to the left to get to the center. "
Perfect, love it!
9
@Bruce Rozenblit
Yes, but if you push too hard or too soon you'll get a lot of people pushing back. For better or worse, big changes take time and it's a slog. Persistence wins, not shock and awe.
6
@Bruce Rozenblit
Ok, but why on earth is letting the undocumented buy guns without background checks a "left" issue?
"Left" is working for universal health coverage, a higher minimum wage, easier organizational requirements for labor unions, protections for workers and the environment in trade agreements (and no ISDS mechanisms that let corporations overturn national labor, health and environmental protections), and a much smaller military that does not invade other countries. If liberals want to win, they have to give up the idea that open borders, guns for undocumented immigrants, and abortion up to 9+ months (which no other democracy allows) are essential parts of a "left" agenda. Not in any other liberal democracy.
8
One of the more revealing, and depressing, observations in this column is that the Republicans' abuse of the motion to recommit was an unforeseen (but not unforeseeable) consequence of the Democrats' effort to make it more difficult for the Republicans to offer amendments. As with Senator Reid's decision to invoke the "nuclear option" a few years ago, a strategy that was helpful to Democrats in the short term proved disastrous in the long term.
It's bad enough that the Democrats invariably bring a butter knife to a gunfight; what's worse is that they also bring an assault weapon, which they generously give to the Republicans.
8
Nancy Pelosi is one member of Congress. Congress represents many districts.
It is normal that those districts have different needs and desires. In fact, that is how it was intended by the framers.
So, Nancy Pelosi does not need to worry about what is normal and, honestly, she should move aside and let the Congress represent its multifaceted nature.
It works out, and, has worked out in far more complex situations in this country than a little diversity of thought about climate change.
Seriously.
3
It would be a shame if internal differences were to cause substantial harm to the Democrats. There’s a Republican President and a Republican Senate. It isn’t like the Democrats are in a position to pass much of any legislation.
The left, center, and conservative Democrats should keep in mind that they don’t have much of anything of importance worth fighting over and they all share an interest in winning 2020.
9
I can vote for Center-left Candidates that Support the following:
affordable housing, substantial wage increases for those earning under 50K, affordable good health care, free commuter colleges, many more affordable universities and increased support for public universities.
Plus big infrastructure projects.
23
Where is the "center" in views and positions of the center-left candidate you say you can support?
Affordable housing requires a subsidy. Wage increases require price increases. Affordable health care requires a subsidy. Free anything requires a subsidy. Big anything has big price tags.
9
@czb: Big wars, big walls, and big tax cuts for the rich carry big price tags too, and the people get nothing in return for it but body bags, ecologically damaging eyesores on their government-seized property and crumbling infrastructure, unaffordable health care and education, and a crumbling social safety net.
31
NANCY PELOSI Must be realistic enough to accept the fact that bills that deserve to pass need support from the Democrats, though their authorship be from the GOPpers. I see nothing wrong with the application of gun ownership laws being applied evenly to immigrants or those seeking asylum. The US loses far more lives to fatal gunshot each year than it has in all those who have lost their lives in Afghanistan or Iraq. She is correct, however, in stating the obvious--that the Democrats must stand together. Indeed, if the so-called "progressives" are to keep their majority in the House and win it in the Senate, they must attract enought GOPpers to carry the day. On the other hand, the imminent establishment of a committee to investigate Trump's over-reach and violation of laws may have the effect of the Watergate committee in stripping the GOPpers of support for protecting a criminal regime that daily shreds the Constitution. Right now that change has not yet occurred. But it will. If Pelosi is to lead realistically, she must have a broader vision of where the Congress must go in order to have majorities in the House and Senate, both, going forward.
7
There's a disinformation war raging right now, the right are told that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) is a threat and they are busy demonizing her; if Faux News is to be believed, she's a socialist who wants to ban: cows, hamburgers, and plane travel with her Green New Deal (GND) - there is nothing about any of these things in the GND. As for socialism, it's ridiculous to suggest that AOC's a socialist; it's just a label the right have tried to apply to demonize her.
I believe that AOC is speaking truth to power; while presenters on Fox worry about what to do with all their air miles (I'm not kidding), the planet is being ruined by the plutocrats' callous regard for the environment. The GND may be ambitious but that's not a reason not to try to reduce our impact on Mother Earth.
That AOC is right will become more obvious with every passing year - she is not a socialist but she and her generation can see through the wealth imbalance charade and are calling the liars out; Pelosi needs to protect and nurture AOC because she's the future of the left and will eventually make an excellent POTUS.
128
@Ted Morton
I expect nothing less from Fox news and their ilk. I get frustrated when Democrats start calling for "centrism" when progressives, like AOC, start gaining traction, as if she were the radical that Fox News paints her to be. What do these people think a centrist in today's politics is? That more of the same over and over--rising inequality, unaffordable health care, weakening unions and labor laws, more wars. Does that sound Republican to you? Well that was Obama and Clinton.
26
@Ted Morton Aside from your idolizing someone who is in essence a child, what evidence do you have that she is "not a socialist" when she herself proclaims that she is.
6
@skeptic
Since when is a 29 year old a child?
7
This excellent column should be required reading for all Democrats. After a few slight modifications, the "socialist" positions of the democratic "extreme-left" can be defined by centrist democrats for what they are -- pragmatic and tested positions that deal rationally with complex issues.
Examples:
• Single-payer healthcare-for-all is the most efficient and cost-effective method of delivering healthcare (see: developed economies worldwide).
• Expanded support for college education -- but means tested! (Millionaire kids don't need the support that impoverished kids do. Duh!)
• Resilient infrastructure spending: it's pay-me-now vs pay-me-later; it's an investment with great returns; it's a jobs program that includes rural under-employed workers; it's a technology research program. We have about ten years according to climate science, which is reality -- like it or not -- and therefore pragmatic.
The ambitious and courageous proposals from AOC and her partners are to be admired, but without these minor tweaks they will turn off much-needed swing voters, and we'll be right back to our steady devolution towards the fascist chaos of the GOP.
59
@Thomas E Beach
There is no "extreme left" Thomas Beach. Stop buying into lies.
2
If she does ignore the left wing of the Party, it will be 2016 and HRC all over again. We can thank the DNC for Donald Trump on that one.
21
"Even shared hostility to President Trump… will not paper over the conflicts." Right! Let's fight the next election, not the last. Yes, the divisions Edsall outlines may prevent a united drive against Trump. In 2016, a stark lesson of history was that Americans don't give the White House to two different Dems in succession unless one died in office (FDR-HT; JFK-LBJ). That meant that the 2016 Dem candidate would have a high hill to climb. I wrote that many times, long before Comey tipped the scale, long before we knew of the Russian IRA or of the Mercers' sabotage. Now, we must see another history: it is unusual these days for a sitting president not to win a second term. Even Nixon won again. Reagan swept in, in spite of deriding the government he led. Clinton was impeached, but won again. W started gross wars, but won. Black Obama, my favorite, won. Carter and Papa Bush, two nice men, colorless and uninspiring, lost. Trump is on track to win. DoJ does not indict a sitting POTUS, and we can’t depend on impeachment and McConnell to remove the stain from our public life. Is it too much to ask the vain, naive Democrats who have declared their candidacy to form a united front? I fear it is.
5
I've been a loyal member of the Democratic Party for 45 years and I'm deeply concerned that the rapid drift leftward will result in a loss in 2020.
There are too many people on the far left who are behaving as though there is no place in the Democratic Party for moderates. Attitudes like that will ensure that the nightmare we are living now with Trump and his allies in Congress will continue.
Democrats cannot win simply by taking California, New York, New England, and New Jersey. If you look at the electoral map from 2016 although Hillary Clinton won the majority of the popular vote the congressional districts went by a large margin to the Republicans. It was the big cities that brought the popular vote to the Democrats.
Ignoring the midwest and the south will prove fatal to the chances of regaining the Presidency, controlling who sits on the U.S. Supreme Court, enacting laws that benefit the poor and middle class and not just the wealthy, protecting our environment, our workplace safety, and a woman's right to choose.
Too often it's the loudest voices in the room that are being heard but America is not a left leaning country, despite what some new members of Congress want us to believe.
The majority of Americans are in the middle of the political spectrum and if we deny them a voice, if we refuse to listen to their concerns, and if we continue to believe that the left's opinion must prevail instead of seeking a middle ground we are dooming ourselves to failure.
72
@Mark Jeffery Koch
Whatever way America leans, the data in Tim Wu's recent article suggest that ideas supported by a vast majority of the population are not being taken up by lawmakers - so what do Democrats have to do to win? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/05/opinion/oppression-majority.html?rref=collection%2Fbyline%2Ftim-wu&action=click&contentCollection=undefined®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection#commentsContainer
15
@Mark Jeffery Koch
If you call humane proposals like Health Care for All, Better Education for All, sensible Climate Change Proposals and Background checks for anyone buying a gun from any source, political left candidate I think you are off the mark.
That is what the politicians who were against Social Security called Social Security. And that has worked perfectly well all of these years. At the very least people in retirement have food on the table and a roof over their heads. I would call that Program humane.
It is not left to be a humane politician. It is the right way to take care of your fellow Americans.
24
@Mark Jeffery Koch
"Ignoring the midwest and the south will prove fatal to the chances of regaining the Presidency . . . "
The Midwest is in play, but forget about the South--and I say this as a Southerner from TN.
13
Politics 101 says you can only lead in a direction that your constituents are already leaning. Trying to oppose them is hard but it’s reasonable to try to educate. This all comes to a combustible head when law-makers think their constituents are all like them. They aren’t. It would be smarter for the Dems to embrace their diversity and even praise those who feel it necessary to defect on an issue rather than expecting blind obedience. The data from such experiences is a valuable input towards understanding how the party is situated nationally and should be embraced, not resisted.
8
OK, it's no longer a theory it's a law. An absolute. A fact. The Party in power has to overreach. This is only about the sixth straight cycle where the party in power feels the need to go guns blazing into th extreme's of their policies. If a person is in the country illegally, even though a mis-demeanor, why do they need a gun? And on what basis do they not get reported to the police? Which, of course, is what the immigrant should be doing in the first place. They feel they can't go to the authorities so they buy a gun? Why didn't they just buy a gun in their native country and stay there. Also, aren't people with guns the reason they fled in the first place?
3
The present battle between progressive and moderate Democrats is self-destructive. The Democrats appear to be mining for opportunities to lose in 2020.
As a lifelong Democrat who is afraid for my country, I say: don’t forget who the real enemy is. Just win.
102
The Republican Party is an unrelenting, reactionary dynamic dedicated to representing the wealthy class, to businesses and to a government--national, state and local--that will preside over almost no interference with the aims and needs of the investor class. This includes, if necessary, the exploitation of labor (the decline of labor unions since Reagan, e.g.) and the aggressive exacerbation of racial and other cultural animosities.
The Democratic Party by contrast, has historically (1930's-present) been dedicated to the more just appropriation of the nation's goods and services to (mostly) all citizens. The tension between the parties is inherent and should be healthy but is now fatally divisive. Republicans, a minority of the voting population, see only one way of remaining viable in politics: gerrymandering--a word not used in this article--and by the saturating the public square with dishonest, incendiary, inaccurate, divisive and misleading information.
What Republicans fear most is diversity; they see their lack of it as a sine qua non racial and commercial hegemonic dynamic driven by fear. The Democratic "left" it would seem to me, has an urgent responsibility to counter their nascent "socialist drift" by applying the very tactics that have enabled Republicans for three generations but doing so without the stridency and hysteria (I'm looking at you, AOC) that have become the DNA of our national political life.
Nancy Pelosi or AOC will win the 2020 presidency.
4
Cutting through all the nonsense jargon, the point is simple. Republicans trust market forces to serve the common good. Democrats favor government involvement to assure fairness.
3
Enough intercene warfare. The object is, as Professor Wu wrote yesterday, to bring back democracy. Please concentrate on areas where everyone agrees. Even Republicans support background checks and negotiation of Medicare drug prices. All of us support fixing health care.
118
@Daniel F. Solomon
Trump's election was democracy... as mandated by the Constitution.
The Democratic Establishment is deathly afraid of democracy, as demonstrated by their treatment of Bernie Sanders in 2016.
And it will be amusing to watch the contortions of the Democratic Establishment and its media as they do all they can to marginalize Bernie.
3
The GOP is united by a monolithic donor base of plutocrats that know exactly what they want and they all want practically the same thing- to reduce or eliminate government actions and power that might reduce their power and wealth. The absolute success of their control is made evident every time a Republican politician looks into the eyes of the American people and shamelessly lies about climate science- all to assure the blessing of our petro-industry oligarchs.
While some of this influence spills over to the Dems, there is still a lot of independent thinking in my party and it is currently on the rise. It may make power harder to sustain by allowing the creativity of original thinking in the search of policy providing the greatest public good, but I will take it over power used only to nourish the powerful.
127
@alan haigh
We need to keep harping on affordable healthcare and education while telling the truth about the crisis of climate change.
Whole blocs of voters must be convinced, not just enough to get a centrist elected in a republican district, what's the use? Look at Ms. Heitkamp--when she stuck her head up, they lopped it off.
6
@alan haigh
The GOP, as it is today, hard right, knows it is in the minority. However, it closes ranks and supports each other and votes together, even if it means supporting the stench coming from the White House now. Thus, it maintains the semblance of majority.
New and further left Democrats need to understand they may not get everything on their wish list. They and their district may lean further left than most of the country.
Don’t lose the good trying for the perfect.
9
@alan haigh
Centrist Democrats are equally united by a monolithic donor base of plutocrats.
2