I will vote for a dirty sock over Donald Trump. If it’s the left sock rather than the right sock, so be it.
14
Somewhere between Eisenhower and Reagan is "too far left."
Forget opioids. The US electorate has ODed on stupid pills.
8
Give Dems, Progressives, and Indis enough rope and we will hang each other.
7
2020 should be about getting Trump out. Period!
There are many aspirations I have and would like to see in a liberal policy shift for this country. But they pale in comparison to getting Trump out!
Trump was elected not because of his base but for 2 other reasons. First, young people DO NOT vote (20% in 2016 and in the great victory in the house in 2018 they soared to....30%. Which DID make a difference...but still).
Number 2, politically middle of the road and particularly women in the suburbs took a chance on Trump in 2016 with many holding there noses, but for whatever reason they hated Hillary. That shifted in 2018 and it payed off! If young people’s best showing is going to be 30% the election will totally hinge on that suburban vote. And they are not going to support everyone getting $1,000 a month for life or free college for all etc. And like it or not the Dems need them to win the election. They will not win without them because young people.....oh yeah we already covered that.
When I was 17 I worked my butt of for Eugene McCarthy who was a great guy and whose morals and policy about the Vietnam war were spot on. And...he...got...slaughtered in the election of 1972 against Nixon. I fear we may be heading for the same unsatisfactory ending in 2020 if the Dems stay on this path.
In 2020 winning IS everything. The future of the country depends on it. Let’s not let the perfect (or the liberal purist) be the enemy of the good because the good is to..get..Trump..OUT!
13
Many will vote Dem regardless
This is yes or no
No grey anywhere
Stop trying to be fair
3
Not far enough.
3
There is no far left.
5
Something like 40% of the people are currently covered by Medicaid, Medicare and other government programs.
But what % of medical care do that 40% consume?
Basically the private health insurance companies only cover people who do not get sick. Meanwhile the Government is already covering the people who do. Whatever the cost of medicare for all, its going to reasonable. Blue Cross of New England by itself has a larger staff than all of Canada's medicare system.
So what I pay in premiums will go down a dime and what I pay in taxes will go up a nickle. So I come out ahead $moneywise.
But what do I get for paying less?
It means everyone I know, and everyone I care about will be covered no matter what happens to them from birth to death.
It means that I will never ever have to worry about being denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition.
Today my employer pays $500, I pay $500, I have to wait for an appointment, the cost are out of this world, and I still don't know if I'm covered because the insurance company might decide that it is a pre-existing condition.
That's $1000 a month for no assurance of insurance at all.
That's a ridiculous system. It's welfare for the 0.001% and only a billionaire or an idiot would be satisfied with out system.
8
Which Democratic Presidential candidates currently call for eliminating ICE?
3
Is it just me, or are Mr. Edsall's columns more charts and quotes than actual writing?
4
DNC could simply avail itself of the latest miracle digital control technology by slapping an MCAS (moderate centering and superdelegating) system onto its hydrogen-filled nomination zeppelin...
When an inexperienced pilot tries to turn the plane too far and too fast progressively to the left, the system would simply over-ride them repeatedly – at some point they’ll realize their mike-stick’s gone dead...
Of course, until the bugs are completely worked out, there is some chance that someone will nose-dive the entire party-blimp into a big beautiful wall...
Tower Control has told them more than once to pay more attention to the terrain, and less to their twitter-feed...
Tower now using their senior controller voice – sounds sort of like an exasperated grandparent, who’s used to being slavishly obeyed by full-grown adults...
1
Susan Collins and Joe Manchin are "moderates" and Elixabeth Warren is a lefty "extremist"? Give me a break!
It is long past time for the Overton Window to be yanked back to the 50-yard line. After 30-years of billionaire-funded cable-TV propaganda, it is now so far into the Left's own end-zone that we have to worry whether the "socialist" New Deal can even survive. What next, an attack on the Emancipation Proclamation on the grounds that it was "anti-business"?
6
Politicians like Alexandria Cortez, for example, could scare the bejeebies out of American voters, especially in places like the Midwest. The idea that Trump will be replaced with a far-left alternative may be an assumption. Trump is looked at like an apostate by many Republicans, someone who hijacked the Republican flag for his own ambition. If the Dems go too far left, it could open the door for a more traditional mainstream Republican as an alternative to Trump. Think Jeb Bush.
2
Reparations for slavery is precisely what this country needs.
No more excuses for slavery being the root cause of the conditions of many African-Americans today. No more talk about the denial of the impact of slavery on the the US today.
All that gone with the stroke of a pen. The guilt account is closed.
Can't wait...
Question is whether it feels better to believe you are 100% right, or win elections.
3
You'd think from all the moaning and whining and ranting by "centrist" Democrats that there was a federal law that forbade them from voting in the primaries.
There is no such law. If you're so terrified of a leftward tilt by Democratic politicians, organize, organize, organize and vote.
Otherwise, you're just noise, and noise is what we block out.
1
Ranked choice voting, people. Ranked choice voting.
5
Dear Mr Rozenblitt, I think you know how highly I esteem you and your comments, but it seems to me that this whole discussion is pointless - it will do no good at all because the USA can only allow two parties at a time, and one of the two parties got itself organized decades ago, and the other one did not - indeed it never has. Compared with all other nations rightfully claiming the word democracy, the USA is primitive, juvenile, and doomed. Who is the leader of the Democratic Party? Stupid question. Where is the Democratic Party's manifesto - just as pointless. More than ever the Democratic Party is a myth. The Republican Party is a force. Its leader is not Mr Trump, it is Mr McConnell, or Mr Pence or whichever elected official has the greatest access to the unlimited sums of money the very very wealthy are ready and eager to make available. If the two dozen Democratic contenders for the party's nomination next year could somehow go to a retreat in the tropics and stay there until they have written a manifesto on which they all pledge to run next year there might - just might - be an election like those in the vast majority of other democracies. But, of course, the first argument would arise over who is going to cover the cost of the retreat. It is the Democratic Party's FATE, it seems to me, that it has been assigned the job of rearranging the deck-chairs on, rather than forming the crew of, the ship of state. IT IS HOPELESSLY UNABLE TO DO WHAT IS NEEDED.
4
Give me an election and I will vote for any of the democratic candidates. Next to Trump they reek of competence and morality.
2
I really meant the Republicans who decided to go with Trump are looked at like apostates. Trump may be seen as more a "false prophet."
Might as well title this article How Much Human Decency Is Too Much Human Decency for Democrats in 2020.
4
Too far left will keep center left voters home, black, women, or gay, candidates will push some conservative voters to Trump. The only Democratic candidate that can win, considering Republican gerrymandering and voter purge/ intimidation, is a right center white male, which at this point, may be Joe Biden. The US is still a racist, bigoted, country, as we found out after the election of Obama, then confirmed by Donald Trump.
2
Democrats are now totally hard left. There is absolutely no room for a moderate Democrat even if such a creature exists. You have to feel badly now for moderate Democrat voters - within their own party, they now have zero voice. None.
We know this to be true based on the Democrat candidates that are running. There’s not a moderate & reasonable choice to be found. Social media has also exposed the ugly truth of Democrat’s hard left neoliberalism - there’s no sanity at all.
The GOP has its problems particularly its hypocrisy with respect to government spending. Insanity however is not one of them. Disillusioned Democrats are free to change sides.
6
When will the corporate media stop referring to what most Americans wish for...affordable healthcare, affordable education, action on climate change, sensible gun regulation, affordable housing, a living wage....as being “leftist”? These ideas are hardly considered leftist in most of the developed world...
5
They keep moving the goal posts.
It won't be long before "radical progressive" is used to describe anyone that wants to preserve Medicare and Social Security and doesn't want to lock up children in cages.
3
Well, I draw the line at wearing a bandoleer, going into the mountains and joining a group of Maoist guerrillas bent on violently overthrowing the government, eliminating private property and establishing a one-party dictatorship with absolute control over every aspect of public and private life. That's too "far left" for me.
Everything else is on the table, and properly called by its true name - "liberal".
5
I'm so sick of everyone judging policies by whether they are "too far left." The GND is common sense policy and would make the world better, period.
2
HOW FAR RIGHT IS TOO FAR RIGHT FOR 2020 Republicans!! (and yes, it IS beside the point).
“Why are these candidates willing to buck political tradition and heighten the risk of defeat on Nov. 3, 2020?”
Why? The proverbial Democratic circular firing squad.
Professor Edsall,
Your question is not beside the point in the Trump era but my observations of the political sentiments of American voters, at least since I have been observing since Eisenhower. seem to support that Left and Right and Too Far for our political parties is determined by the evolving media.
In my earlier years, newspapers, radio, and mail and the art of posters helped define issues and acceptable positions on the issues, After Nixon and JFK, television and the Networks evening news reports along with the positions taken home from religion related meetings. But even in those years, the producers, directors, and Network TV journalists controlled and created the issue agenda for the Nation.
Vietnam had a special place. The oil price hikes of the 70's and the economic disruption they caused put politics in a tailspin.
In my view the growing gap between the 1%, the huge existential issue of GLOBAL warming and its potential for being used by the forces of darkness to scare people about their economic future are the big issues that should determine who we select.
Clearly, it needs to be a leader who can capture the hearts and minds of the World population and cool the military response to every global problem. Immigration has been elevated but the issue really is how do we make life better for the families in poor countries.
China seems to be seizing the opportunity to deal with Global Warming. They are starting a space solar project and Maglev HSR.
3
The media, including the NY Times and the Washington Post, lionize the extremes. It sells more papers, just like stories of wars, riots, struggles sell more papers than moderate events. So the media gets more bang for the buck it spends on controvertial and extreme political candidates.
There is little effort to get into the details, the complexities of even moderate change. It's spin, 15 second sound bites, and on to the next tidbit.
Like sex, war and reality, people prefer action, not the long realistic perhaps boring but very real details between the now and then bursts of reality.
In the general election, the passions have cooled a bit, some of the candidates and their enthusiasts have gone home, but the media still likes to get juice out of the final battle. It's not so exciting for many, but the media likes novelty, entertainment, superficiality and a quick break to another ad. And many people are sheep. They vote for a party or a view they don't understand. There are very few thoughtful people, people who think outside the box. Our schools teach conformity, very successfully.
2
"A number of Democratic presidential candidates, for example, are calling for the elimination of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency and they have declared themselves in favor of such multibillion dollar programs as Medicare for all and a Green New Deal. Growing numbers are supportive of reparations to compensate black Americans for the costs of slavery and segregation." Actually, this is a mischaracterization of the positions of some of those who've announced support for this manifesto - not a policy, but a policy position - and does not apply at all to the majority of Democratic candidates.
2
The whole idea exemplified by this article, and by a lot of Democratic Party practice: that the way to win an election is to come up with just the right mix of poll-tested policies appealing to various groups of voter - is wrong. Unless your policy prescriptions are part of a coherent narrative - whether it be a narrative of change, or one of preservation - laundry lists of highly detailed policies for every occasion appeal only to the very tiny demographic of NYT and Washington Post op-ed columnists. On the other hand, a coherent narrative can support policies that aren't particularly popular standing on their own.
6
We have outstanding candidates. When you hear them speak it is full of substance ms Warren has thoughtful policies, for finances , climate change Bernie talks about health care for all with a plan, Peter talks about the education and the A.I. Employment revolution. They are talking about real issues that touch our lives.
Dementia is as serious as cancer we need money for funding. There is no progressive we are all Americans who deserve a better life and we are going to get it.
5
The key will be how the Democratic candidate speaks and campaigns between nomination and election day.
2
Who defines whether a policy is too extreme? Most Americans favor higher taxes on the wealthy, but any proposal to accomplish that is called far left. Same is true on environmental issues, background checks for gun owners, higher minimum wage, etc. Any proposal to accomplish what surveys say most Americans favor is quickly labelled radical and dismissed.
4
@EdBx The right has done an excellent job making liberal a bad word when it's really much more ethical.
3
Tom, charismatic candidates win.
Taking a position and framing it attractively will always beat taking no position, or framing a position defensively.
It's not really about conservative, moderate or liberal. It's charisma, baby.
3
If we don't enact the Green New Deal and turn around climate change, it won't matter whether Democrats or Republicans are in office. Policy is much more important than party, and I'll always vote for the one who espouses progressive policy over any other factor.
7
@Claudia Gold the you are making a huge assumption that the green new deal is a workable plan. I agree we need to address climate change urgently but we need a solid plan not a resolution that outlines pie in the sky goals. The green new deal is about a socialist power grab not about reducing emissions to a point before the tipping point. Renewable energy technology just can't get us there in time, or perhaps ever.
7
@Lisa We have no choice but to try and push for it. It was ambitious when we decided to shoot for the moon, and we got there. It's not pie-in-the-sky. Socialists appear to be the only ones you get that we HAVE to tie climate change policy to jobs programs and social policies -- otherwise they will temporarily hurt average workers. We need to help workers rise up while also fixing climate change, and the only way to do that is with a bill that does both in one. That is the genius of the Green New Deal.
4
@Claudia Gold shooting for the moon was a realistic idea. The project of getting to the moon fit the laws of physics. We are asking physics to now bend to our will as human with regard to renewable. That is the STARK difference. Physics will not change just because we want or need them to. If that is what you gall genius then I am at a loss of hope. We do have clean technology that is based in the real world and physics. But, that is a discussion for a different post.
1
Translation: the Democrats' need to cater to disparate groups with different priorities will force their candidate to take preposterous and incoherent stances, somehow costing the Democrats' an election that should be gift-wrapped.
Get a seasoned leader with a demonstrated (i.e., actual voting record and implemented policies) record of compassion and levelheadedness. Enough of this insistence on "new blood." It's hard to get a job as a waiter without prior experience. Why is the most important job in the world the one for which people think experience is a bad thing?
Not every liberal bloc is going to be satisfied with the Democratic candidate, but after what we have seen Trump do the last two years, it would be unconscionable to sit at home in protest. People should be willing to cast a vote for integrity, decency, and morality, even if those traits don't bring every policy someone might like.
4
What would be the poll numbers on this yes/no question: Do you agree that health insurance should be available ONLY to healthy people, who have no prior history of any illnesses, who are employed by mid-to-large corporations (more than 1,000 employees) that offer health insurance as part of their salary package?
Remember, there is only one response--yes or no. If you answer "Yes," I agree, the pollster will probably label you a Republican. But is this stance true of most people who think of themselves as Republicans? Not those who love their Medicare and admit that it seems utterly unfair to consider even one episode of high blood pressure--a spike--evidence of their uninsurability.
Yes/no polling puts us at odds with each other, and sometimes with ourselves. To me, the New Green Deal ethos is mainly about social issues, even personal issues that have to do with gender and identity. Economic healthcare policies (the "for all" grouping) is different. But in this climate, we're expected to pull the lever on the whole party agenda, like it or not. Keep doing that and not only won't Dems win national elections, they'll have to spend what's left of the treasury, post-Trump, on telling us all what all of the labels mean and imply, at the ballot. Me, I've considered Elizabeth Warren quite "moderate," based on her intelligent explanation of her views within an historical context. Now this piece tells me she's an "extremist." Huh. Re-do those polls, with footnotes.
1
Don’t understand why Elizabeth Warren should be considered an extreme politician. Her signature issues seem to me to be things like having a consumer protection bureau for consumers of financial products and reviving previously accepted American thought regarding monopoly power and restraint of trade.
I’m an Eisenhower Republican at heart but these are issues where I tend to agree with the progressive view that it’s not that the Ds have moved far left but that the Rs have moved far to the right.
As for issues like Medicare for All or reparations I have no reason to think she wouldn’t be open to compromises such as “fix Obamacare and add a public option” or “let’s find ways to truly confront the history of slavery and Jim Crow and to identify and address continuing consequences, but cash transfers from John and Mary to Betty and William might or might not be the best way to do that.”
In general we might try to look at the substance and specifics of issues a little more and correspondingly be a little less concerned with where people might place an issue on this left-right axis we’ve cooked up.
7
I will not be satisfied until Democrats go as far "Left" as the republicans have gone "Right." The most progressive candidate that eschews corporate PAC money will get my vote.
6
There are now 18 Democratic candidates for president and Joe Biden waiting to take the jump. There would be agreement that two of the candidates are on the left, that would be Sanders and Warren, but I don't think you would get agreement that any of the others are on the left. Granted some are hard to categorize like Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand who have recently moved left. Tulsi Gabbard who probably is furthest left on foreign policy. Inslee has a liberal record as governor but is he really on the left? I don't believe he has supported Medicare for All, the litmus tests of litmus tests. There are so many candidates that followers of the race really need a spreadsheet to figure out where the candidates stand. There could be one column for each progressive litmus test. Then data would have to be obtained to fill in the blanks. Then maybe it will be clearer who is definitely on the left, who is definitely not on the left, and whose status is uncertain.
2
Ideas like Medicare for All are considered "extreme positions" and that's on the pundits. Extreme is something that's extreme to the corporations and rich people who have the most to lose. Extreme ideas to us are ideas that have been implemented in the rest of the industrialized world for decades.
10
Agree fixing our health insurance system is the conservative and prudent thing to do. It’s the current system that is risky. Costs are spiraling out of control, and thanks to gaps in coverage only the 1 percent don’t risk bankruptcy.
4
Again, 160 million Americans get their health coverage through their employer, and 70% of those are satisfied with that coverage. Doing away with that system for a single-payer system may offer a better or more equitable system (or not) but it cannot be called conservative.
2
I am a moderate who after Reagan vowed to never vote Republican ever again. However, this slate of Democratic candidates scares me. I want everything too, but I want to understand how all these fantastic ideas will be paid for.
I wish instead of the classic “tax the rich” response there would be serious talk and ideas to reform the tax code.
Everything seems so oversized and bombastic coming from both sides of the political spectrum.
I am just a regular guy who lives in the middle of all this rhetoric and needs some solutions that will make life better for me in this supposedly most advanced country in the world.
9
Mr. Edsall does a good job showing that much of the pundit class is not reading the the zeitgeist very well. Part of the problem is the nature of the polling questions they rely on. The so-called ambiguity over medicare-for-all for example. I don't see the polling framing the question correctly or realistically. The benefits side of MFA is partly known. The complete question is: would you Exchange the costs of premiums (your and/or your employer's), the cost of copays and drugs up to your out of pocket maximum, as well as the network restrictions enforced by private insurers, in addition to separate costs for dental care and vision care, would you exchange that for the benefits of Medicare-for-All which include Dental and Vision care, and no network restrictions or out of network cost hikes, and no copays, for Less Overall Cost to you, taken in the form of a progressive rate payroll tax , Low for low income, modest for medium incomes, and high for high incomes that would, again, be substantially less than you are paying now with private insurance?
Perhaps rephrased as an explanation with a question. But the point is: who wouldn't want that except perhaps the very wealthy? The poll questions leave too much out to make a sensible judgement.
But the real question not analyzed is: are you tired of your government and party being controlled and run by the financial elite, who corrupt candidates at their outset with campaign donations? That is the Zeitgeist question.
4
Apparently, you haven't noticed: the center hasn't held, and America has gone wobbling off into the moral and intellectual vacuum on the far right.
What's required is common sense confrontation, not fearful accommodation, of the illusions Trump conjures.
The economy is great--if you're wealthy--but the middle class is getting hosed. The country's infrastructure is falling apart. The environment is deteriorating in ways that will make our way of life impossible. All the Republicans have to say is "Hey, we're doing fine!"
Voters may succumb to right wing propaganda if Democrats don't present a clear analysis and real alternative to Trump's falsehoods and magical thinking. Why fault Democrats for developing such an analysis and alternative?
10
2020 is the most critical election cycle since the Civil War. Democrats must go full economic progressive but not insert toxic right wing wedge issues into their own platform. The data are clear - center and left Democrats will vote D no matter what (especially after the 2016 vote wasting debacle) but right leaning Dems and independents will be turned off by an extreme social agenda dripping with identity politics. While they may not vote for Trump, they may not show up at all, thereby leaving a united Republican Party to capture the Senate and Presidency again.
9
There are two different questions here. How to win the election and how to win the debate about the agenda. Obama won the former, but I would say he failed at the latter. He certainly did not inspire enough voters to go and vote for the candidates who supported his plans.
Many voters don't care that much about specific policy proposals. And certainly not about the details. The fact that some Sanders supporters or Obama voters voted for Trump certainly suggests a lack of familiarity with the issues. People want to vote for someone who seems genuine. And for many people, Trump seemed genuine. Psychopaths are good at that. It's called mirroring.
If a candidate is seen as pandering to a base, or too calculating in what they say, it's bad. It's the how just as much, or more, than the what.
2
It's odd that nobody ever bothered to ask how far Right is too far Right since the GOP took power in 1994. Tom Edsall doesn't seem to see the difference between movement to the Left and a correction from 25 years of extreme Right politics.
13
The Democrat candidates will run to the left in the primaries and then make a turn towards the center during the main elections. The promises will remain promises, the victim of gridlock and lack of budget. American politics will continue as usual, working for the special interests that pays for it.
3
"Extreme" and "progressive" are buzzwords in this article.
A candidate who speaks to what working people need, with concrete proposals and a plan to pay for it, can win votes without labels.
The article assumes that people vote unaffected by outside stimuli.
A charismatic candidate can add weight to his/her party's platform.
3
Employer provided health insurance followed by Medicare looks like it is going to work for me as I near retirement. But thinking about my kids, now aging out of being on parental insurance (thank you President Obama!), living in an "Uber" world, I don't see this as a viable model. My kids (and maybe your kids) are not living in a " General Motors will employ me for life" world and we need to transition to a system that recognizes the changing realities of the working world. Given all the other problems we are leaving them, couldn't we at least try to have a health care system that is appropriate for the modern working world?
5
Some progressives seem to be taking as the lesson of the 2016 campaign that if the Republicans can win with an extremist candidate, then so can the Democrats. However, Trump didn't win as much because of his policies as he did because he could connect with voters that both parties abandoned years ago. If Democrats want to win back the White House, they need to nominate a candidate who is capable of connecting with these voters. If you are going to expand the size of government with big social programs, you better be able to explain to these folks how they will be benefited by those programs and how those benefits outweigh the additional tax burden. I'm not sure if any of the declared candidates are capable of that.
6
@Glenn Gould Trumps is not an extreme rightist. Keeping/protecting SS and Medicare is not an extreme position. Protecting our borders is not extreme.
5
@Glenn Gould,
The problem is that Democrats are just as reluctant as Republicans to shift taxes from the military to social programs.
And Democrats have done a poor job of explaining how higher taxes would be offset by a reduction in health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket expenses.
4
I believe the phrase “economically conservative, socially liberal” fits many center-left voters; it certainly fits me. So as soon As someone bases their campaign on “Medicare for All,” or “Free College for All,” I might like the idea, but want some details on how we are going to pay for it. I’m much more amenable to social or environmental legislation that benefits most people. As I phrased it to a friend, I may agree with aspirational goals, but I vote for pragmatic ones.
5
I have long said, to anyone who would listen, that the best investment this country could make is in the health, education, and economic well-being of all its citizens. To that end, let’s begin with lowering the eligible age for Medicare to, say, 60, and then reduce it incrementally over time. Let private insurance remain an option for those who want it, but provide a functioning, efficient Medicare system for everyone, eventually. Healthy citizens are more productive and more economically secure.
I hope the Democrats come out with some graphic comparisons of higher Medicare costs versus current premiums and deductibles. Medicare, as almost everyone who uses it will tell you, works extremely well. I have been on it for nine years, and I love it.
3
@Pamela Rose
Healthcare doesn't make people healthy. Healthcare happens once people get sick. This mistake is to equate healthcare with health. Healthcare is equated with sickness. Healthy people don't need doctors. We need a country that promotes fitness, health diet, and anti-obesity. America has made great strides in reducing smoking and lung cancer. The same should be done for obesity (which causes hip and knee problems). When I was a smoker, I was shamed for smoking. We should shame obese people for being obese. Shaming helped curtail smoking, which was a national health epidemic. Coddling doesn't help anybody.
2
Shaming people who are obese obviously doesn’t work. Education about nutrition, time to cook, and money to pay for high quality food (as well as time and somewhere to exercise) would be far more effective.
2
I'm a retired physician and aging liberal baby boomer. Like many of us, I would like to work toward universal healthcare in a way that will achieve the maximum buy-in from the country as a whole.
I would like to see election reform that reverses gerrymandering and overturns Citizens United. Beyond that, any effort to push an aggressive, progressive agenda is likely to alienate moderate and independent voters. If that occurs, it may well allow Donald Trump to be re elected which would be devastating to America.
4
Sanders had more indepedent voters on his side than did Trump.
Far from being turned off by his "extremist" policies, they embraced them.
2
@James Asthalter. Why would it be devastating? Don’t you like the economy? Are you in favor of open borders? And I can’t even imagine a healthcare system run by the government. Why would anyone become a doctor?
Healthcare seems to be a big issue. Do people need it more now than in the past? Are people taking more medications than before (for depression, diabetes, etc.)? I was born in 1969. Growing up, it was rare for someone to use a prescription medication of any sort, unless they were recovering from surgery or something. What percentage of the need for health care is due to increased prescription use and also to increased type 2 diabetes?
1
Yes, people need public health care more than before because (1) both insurance and care are much more expensive than they used to be (2) fewer employers provide insurance (3) those that do pay for less of it.
@Mopar
I as paying 450/month for catastrophe coverage. Basically, I didn't want to break my leg in three places skiing and not have coverage. I'm not sure who needs more coverage than that (for skiing accidents). I'm being only partially facetious. I'm a triathlete type. I don't understand not being absolutely fixated on fitness and health. Do people need more than 450/month of health insurance coverage? If so, why? Medication co-pays? I'm trying to find out why people without MS or cancer or fibromyalgia need health care. My question is quite sincere. Nobody has answered my question.
Are fewer employers paying for insurance, or are more people working part-time/gig economy jobs? If they later is true (more people doing part-time gig jobs) is that because everybody wants to crowd into Brooklyn and not live in Memphis or St. Louis or Hartford or Topkea? I mean, re people opting for part-time no insurance jobs when they could get jobs with full insurance by living in what New Yorkers view as second and third tier cities? is it that NO employers offer good insurance or no employers in NYC, LA, and SF offer good insurance?
With the world threatened by impending climate catastrophe and right-wing takeovers in a growing number of countries, a gradualist's victory that would create a government controlled by "moderate" Democrats may be Pyrrhic. We are headed for a great waterfall. Turning our ship half-way around will not suffice. Even if we turn her all the way around, we may still go over that waterfall... backwards. Our ship of state needs to be propelled full-throttle upstream, diagonally perhaps, but not just cross-current. We need anticipatory leadership, not just an electoral victory
80
@Alan "We need anticipatory leadership, not just an electoral victory"
Alan, I don't see how we can have
"anticipatory leadership" without an "electoral victory"
11
Kamala Harris has ZERO chance of being elected president. The Democrats should prepare themselves for total defeat in 2020, because socialism and reparations aren't popular ideas. Alec Baldwin would have a better chance at beating Trump than anyone currently challenging him.
11
@Mark
Just to be clear. Reparations aren't popular among white people. Read the article.
Republicans have come to power since 1979 based purely on one issue: Packing SCOTUS with right wingers to keep females barefoot and pregnant, preferably after their Catholic and evangelical fathers have sold them into marriage at age 15.
The GOP doesn't hate gays anymore because half of them are male. And t'll look the other way at immigrants as long as they work for less than minimum wage. But the wimmen folk, well, the GOP will never rest till there are zero reproductive health services and birth control again becomes impossible to obtain.
1
The very things that get derided as "boutique policies" or "identity politics" are simple matters of justice for many people. This article also shows how much the way a question is asked matters. When reparations is framed as sending checks to African Americans, of course opposition is substantial, even among African Americans. I wonder what would happen if people were asked about something more along the lines of a truth and reconciliation commission. Yes, justice has a price tag. So does injustice, a bigger one.
2
@Fred What would be the point of a reconciliation commission, if not to get/redistribute money at some point in the future? No offense, but I don't know if everyone in the country wants to use South Africa or Zimbabwe as role models.
3
I'm a moderate Democrat in a purple state and with what i'm hearing from the Democrats, I can't run to the Republican candidates quickly enough.
14
You're not a moderate Democrat if you would run to the far-right GOP.
Moderate Democrats would be at least interested in preserving New Deal gains.
5
@Jerry Engelbach But adding two new expenditures (Med for All and Reparations) totaling about 50 to 60 Trillion dollars will bankrupt current New Deal programs, because even though they don't admit it now, the Dems WOULD take money from current programs to fund their new ones.
1
@Ncinblood,
There is nothing moderate about the Republicans in Washington. If your positions on taxes/healthcare/abortion/climate are closer to those held by Republicans today, then you are no moderate. I think concerns about excess PC are overblown and just an excuse for people to revert to more self serving politics.
2
As a former Democrat, I beg the radical Democratic Left to get even more radical.
This will alienate the Michigan/Wisc/Ohio voters and help facilitate the Trump re-election.
12
It's ironic how slippery and self-serving "extreme" is as a concept. Increasingly, the GOP is embracing actual right-wing extremism in their policy, and the mainstream media either carries water for this or clutches its proverbial pearls over this. Even when those GOP ideas aren't actually popular with the majority of voters (or the American populace in general).
Then, if/when the Democrats push even a smidgen to the left of their center-right neoliberal stance, the mainstream media gets in a twist over these so-called "extreme" views. Even when those Democratic ideas are widely popular with a majority of voters.
So, you have the GOP ignoring popular opinion and ramrodding the nation into fascism USA, without real pushback. And you have the Democrats cringingly considering what the majority of Americans actually want and wondering if they should go there or not (with the mainstream media fretting over them being too extreme).
As far as paying for it goes, how about revoking those GOP top-tier tax cuts, trimming copious amounts of Pentagon pork, and taking other measures to generate revenue that could fund these "extreme" things the Dems want?
ANY Dem running will be considered a "socialist" by today's GOP, regardless of their policies. So, better for the Dems to go big and win the majority on message and vision, versus playing defense with a dishonest opponent and cringing their way through.
5
@Daibhidh
It is interesting to note how Democratic policies nearly always get the "how much will it cost" trope yet journalists and opinion writers barely wink at the costs of Republican policies or note-in-passing how "Republicans don't seem to care about the deficit...anymore". Today, another case is the front page missive about the cost of Universal Health Care.
5
I like to think I am a "moderate" Democrat--or perhaps what we used to call a liberal--and I vote in primaries. Surely there are others like me?
I just hate that "perfect" has become the enemy of good. Especially since "perfect" is the position of a small group of people with a very large megaphone.
9
Your meme does not apply to these issues.
It should be "the good is better than the status quo."
When I turn 65 , my high deductible, self-employed insurance costs dropped 40% and Medicare covered all my expenses with zero deductibles. Drugs were still costly.
Those Democrats who are unwilling to save 40% by eliminating the insurance profiteers are foolish incrementalists. Medicare for All will be cheaper still with all younger and healthier members in the Medicare pool. Senator Bernie Sanders knows this. Democrats with ties to the insurance industry silently know this also.
4
@D Silk Medicare has a 20% deductible, so you probably have a Medigap or MA plan to cover your deductibles. Those plans are private insurance, and if private insurance goes away, you will find you have deductibles again. And they won't be tiny.
2
@me Even with Medigap, I saved 40%. Everything including tests, a colonoscopy, etc., was covered.The numbers are well in favor of Medicare for All. Let Medicare negotiate with the drug companies and save everyone even more. Let healthier young people pay in and the rates for everyone will go down even more. The numbers don't lie.
@D Silk
You paid into the system your entire life and are not finally receiving something in return. That would not be the case with Medicare for All.
1
Search this opinion piece for the words "sane" or "sanity". I suppose that's no longer in vogue or even a threshold option.
I long for the days of Scoop Jackson and and Phil Gramm when there was such a thing as a moderate democrat. I also miss Bill Clinton who was the last president to actually produce a surplus and paid down the national debt. Democrats only need to do one thing to win the White House and that is to pay attention to the working class. The people who live two paychecks away from losing their lifestyle and to whom 500 dollars is a lot of money. Promising to pay reparations when a great many people who would foot the bill for them did not have ancestors that even lived in this country during slavery is a nonstarter. I ma all for saving the planet and believe we must stop global warming but not the way the Green New Deal envisions it. Medicare for all sounds good but the cost of it in terms of money and a decline in the quality of overall health care are real concerns. I too find the President repugnant, but if the choice is between contributing the bulk of my income to reparations, medicare and the Green New Deal and having a clown as a president, I will pick the clown.
12
@George
A great many of us were and are still alive. We remember all the red lining and Jim Crowing and lynching's and the Institutional racism. No need to go all the way back to slavery. Sixty years ago when I was born will do...
@George,
Since there is no proposal that would require the "bulk of your income" your argument is moot.
I agree that reparations is a foolish position, but the other items on your list benefit you as well as the rest of society.
Trump is not a clown. He and the GOP are a serious fascist threat.
1
I have two modest proposals:
1. Call "medicare for all" the option for folks still working to "buy into Medicare" as an option. Everybody who has it loves it (I'm one). Instead of calling it the public option (which it is) - and they will come..
2. Instead of talking about the government as the employer of last resort - the way the Socialist Democrats like to talk, how about changing some laws that make current employers more willing to hire people by the government taking on some of the costs, like the half of Social Security costs and health costs they now carry, and if that's not enough giving some employers a "dependents deduction" for their employees. Sure there are lots of details to work out ... but what do we have bureaucrats and politicians for?
And please spare me the cynicisms.
Wow, the Government employing people is bad, but the Government paying to employers to employ the people and get richer is just fine?
1
I keep trying to figure out how the R's get away with saying Medicare for All would mean the elimination of private insurance companies, and why the NYT reinforces that deception rather than calling them on it.
Has the NYT -- not to mention the Democratic politicians -- never heard of MedAdvantage plans, which are written by private insurance companies and widely used by people who are now on Medicare? Why would those go away if Medicare became available to all instead of only people over 65?
3
@Lu They would go away because they are private insurance and Sanders has said he wants to eliminate private insurance.
3
What does an empty win with a milquetoast agenda do for the Democrats? We have to stand for something important or why are we here? Just to win elections?
Also what is now called "extreme" liberalism once normative and moderate.
5
If you want to defeat the Republican, then you must be concerned about nominating a winner, not virtue signaling. However, Clinton did not lose just because of Comey and Russia. Trump inspired voters, she did not. Republicans can inspire with catcalls, a Democrat without Obama's charisma, must convince Americans that (s)he will bring real change.
The problem is exacerbated by the frequent use of "extreme" by the mainstream press. Getting rid of the Electoral College is not extreme; Congress came very close to passing an amendment 50+ years ago. Ending SS and Medicare, closing the border, taking health coverage away from millions, turning against our allies and NATO, these are "extremes" advocated by Republicans, but rarely labeled as such.
How do we frame that real change, help Americans to see that for decades Republicans have been fighting democracy, not just Democrats, and that reducing income inequality requires 1950's taxes to win the class war that plutocrats have been waging against the rest of us for decades? Americans must believe that the Democratic candidate will bring real change; a "centrist" will fail at that as badly as Hillary did. That requires real policies that can actually change things, but framed, like FDR did, in ways that Americans can hear.
3
@DW107
Empty suit inexperience and hopey changey charisma is what got the Democrats in trouble, resulting in 8 disappointing years and then Trump.
The long game in 2008 ought've been Clinton/Obama, ditto in 2012, then Obama running for president in 2016.
2
@Maggie,
On the contrary, it was conservative old guard of the Democratic Party, led by Nancy Pelosi, that lost the government.
A theme of this column seems to be that presidential candidates are only "playing to their base" and don't really care about the policies they are promoting. I am not a professional political analyst, but I believe Hillary Clinton lost because she did not seem to care about ordinary people, and she did not seem invested in the policies she offered, whether or not they were "incremental." In my opinion, for a candidate to win in the primary and general elections, the candidate must really believe in his/her policy proposals, communicate enthusiasm about them, and coherently explain how they will improve Americans' lives. Additionally, I echo Pete Buttigieg when he chided Chuck Todd on Sunday about pundits' always placing candidates along a political spectrum, which takes a lot less thought and effort than actually analyzing their proposals (which the NYT to its credit has done with Single Payer healthcare).
2
Good article, but it's leading the readers here down the wrong path. That is, while positions matter, THE CANDIDATE is even more important. The Dems won in 2018 (and for president in '08 and '12) because they had the better candidates. (I say this as a Republican.) The commenters here may want to believe it was because everyone agrees with them, but that is simply not so. Democratic enthusiasm led to their outperformance in fundraising, but even more importantly, Trump's persona convinced many GOP candidates to stay out. The reverse was true in 2016, when the Dems ran a LOUSY candidate.
(p.s. - As a guy who picked Virginia early to win the tournament, I say watch the guy from WA., Inslee.)
4
@Connecticut Yankee
A "lousy" candidate who won the popular vote by 3 million, which is more than Obama did but who lost in 3 key GOP northern states of PA, WI, MI - all 3 of which are not just majority conservative religious but are nearly 60% Catholic and evangelical.
4
@Maggie
Enough already about Hilary's "winning" (or is it "whining?") the popular vote. She won California by 3 million votes and lost the REST of the country (and the election) by 500,000.
2
I am progressive in principle, but I am also pragmatic. I am also a Democrat. This combination tells me to support a moderate Democratic presidential candidate over a person who is solidly to the left—particularly in 2020. I prefer a Democratic candidate who has a strong chance of beating Donald Trump, along with a very progressive Congress, as a combination likely to lead to progressive legislation. This sounds a lot like what we had with President Obama. That said, my other tendency is to support a female Presidential candidate. THAT, I believe, might well be acceptable in 2020.
3
@SVS fair enough.
I agree. The Democrats should keep being Republicans lite, compromising with those who won't compromise at all. Quiver and shake at the specter of being attacked by the right wing. If the Republicans want to destroy a national park, offer that they only get to destroy half of it, then "settle" for them destroying three-quarters of it. God forbid we should have single-payer health care like every other industrialized nation. Or free tuition.
How long will it be before the punditry learns that caving just encourages the Republicans to take more extreme positions? That if the choice is a fake Republican versus a real one, the voters will choose the real one. That if you smile and are moderate and try to compromise, the right-wing fanatics will ride roughshod over you?
Oh, and punditry: you accepted Barr's four page summary of the Mueller Report, and spewed your "lessons" from it. You still trust these hacks. You haven't looked at the report and think you can pontificate about what it all means.
What the heck is wrong with taking progressive positions and fighting for them? Isn't it about time politicians stood up for the 99.9 percent?
4
As a Muslim Immigrant from solid blue New Jersey, I should be a card carrying member of the Democratic Party. But having half a brain, I know their agenda is pure fantasy and will yield a lower quality of life for all.
Just take Medicare for All. Naturally the Dems are proposing it because their last healthcare plan, Obamacare, failed miserably. But they learned no lessons and now want a full take over of the healthcare system.. without thinking through the consequences. Like what happens to innovation and quality of service? The young enthusiastic "progressives" don't have enough foresight to see it, but a quick trip to the UK will clearly display the failings of a universal healthcare scheme.
Same with the "Green New Deal". Can anyone tell these dreamers that there isn't even enough Lithium Ion to power half the cars in America (much less the world). With just 2% of the cars on the road using L-Ion, there are already shortages. And mining of the stuff pollutes ground water and kills fish. And How do you dispose of L-Ion batteries safely... anyone? Windmills kill birds. Solar panels cause habitat loss. But again, the "progressives" are too fantastical to think about these practical matters.
That is why I put the term "progressives" in quotes, in reality they are Regressive. If the Green New Deal were fully implemented, we would be driving horses and buggy, using sail for shipping and cow dung for cooking. How can anyone truly call that "progressive".
106
@Ayaz A lot to unpack here...
The ACA failed for two reasons: several provisions have been sabotaged either by the GOP (demanding compromises that undermined the solvency of the system in exchange for promised votes they never delivered) or by the courts, and the facat that the ACA didn't address the core issue in our healthcare system: the fact that it is a privately run, profit driven enterprise that exists not to treat people, but to make money. Don't forget that the ACA is based off of a Heritage Foundation plan.
Everyone I've ever talked to form the UK, Canada, Australia, or pretty much any country with a universal health care system considers the US healthcare system to be nothing short of barbarism. They express shock and pity at the way things work here, and it's because it's a disgrace. People can't even afford insulin now for no reason other than price gouging.
If you want to call me a "Regressive" for trying to make sure that everyone in this country, including the people who I disagree with politically, has access to healthcare, then go ahead. For the sake of civility, I won't say what I'd like to call you.
44
Well said. Yelling loud is often a coverup of not thinking
9
@Greg
ObamaCare has failed in most regards because it was intended to be another welfare program for a few million but paid for by taxing all of the middle and upper middle class, without actually FIXING our broken system.
21
«How far left is too far left for 2020 Democrats?» This is actually a fair question, provided it is immediately followed by «How far left is left enough for 2020 Democrats?» And the answer is, I suspect, a great deal further left than Hillary Clinton and Obama, but not quite as far left as Sanders.
2
The important thing is to win at least both houses and really the presidency as well. If we focus only on the individual issues every criticism will land like on a flailing boxer. There are plenty of possible options so Dems don’t have to associated with high tax rates, anti business, identity politics, overly distributive policies, excess government control particularly over health care, over the top abortion support. Stop saying that every other country does it. A lot can be done without these extremes. That will truly be bold for the Democrats.
@J L S F
Clinton and Sanders had near exact mirror platforms, as did Clinton and Obama, btw.
It does not surprise that so many people, even those in Portugal, still cannot conquer their demons of misogyny.
2
Polarization is getting extreme. Thinking folks on both sides need to work on leaving room in their party for Sen Joe Manchin Gov Bob Kerrey Sen Flake,Gov Kasich types in respective parties. I was forced to vote Trump someone I've never liked still don't but support politically... open borders, unlimited immigration, free health care etc? never...worse than Dixiecrats of the past.
5
Far left will badly lose in 2020 just like 1972
(George McGovern) and 1984 (Walter Mondale).
2020 is replay of these two elections.
6
@Linjack
I don't see the possibility of a McGovern or Mondale type of loss because of the political polarization that we have today. There are too many blue states for a landslide loss of epic proportions. Today, the presidential elections are contested in only about a dozen states. I think the problem for the Democrats is the progressive wing is less interested in winning elections than taking over the Democratic Party. I think many progressives are pained to be in the same party with people they call corporate Democrats, shills, sell outs, Republican lite, etc. They would be much happier if the Democratic Party moved further left which means moving away from corporations and toward movements of the people. Whether you can move left and win elections at the same time remains unclear.
@Bob However, you are forgetting the culture divide, which is even worse now than it was in the 60's and 70's. And the racial divide is also much worse.
If Trump can capture the minds of the electorate in believing that immigrants are a threat to one’s job security and personal safety, that minorities are a threat to the future of whites, and that he alone can restore jobs in heretofore dying industries like coal mining, then he will likely win the 2020. All these ideas have genuine appeal to 90% of Republicans out of the gate.
Democrats can seek to engender a vision of a future that will soon confront us with real issues, like climate change, college education, work and long overdue racial equity.
The 2020 is about the future of the next generation wants to live.
1
@Mojoman49 Actually, the ideas you mentioned in your first paragraph appeal to me, too. And was a Democrat for decades. Concern for personal safety, culture issues, dislike of both antisemitism and ageism, coupled with your issues all turned me into an Independent.
@Mojoman49 The ideas in your first paragraph definitely resonate with me. And the Democrats' anti semitism, ageism, hatred of whites are big turnoffs. So, Independent I shall be, after most of my life as a Democrat. Adios...
This column lost me when the writer allowed, without comment, one political scientist to describe issues of concern to African-Americans, Hispanics, environmentalists, etc. as "boutique" and another to characterize Elizabeth Warren as "extreme".
Are we supposed to take them as "authorities", and their reactionary remarks as "informed commentary"? Thomas Edsall would appear to have it so.
4
I'm a dreamer! I want a better America for all. I appreciate all the candidates' new ideas. Even the concept of mining green cheese on the moon. We will never progress if we continue to spout only the ideas pre-approved by the GOP and DNC. I sense what's missing in many discussions when the costs surface is what changes will occur to pay for them. For example, we know Medicare for All will be expensive. We also know that its costs will be less than what Americans and corporations that pay fore employee health care are currently paying for our present disaster. Let's talk about it. Stop telling candidates to shut up!
2
How much should we compromise with fascism? Can we live with Trump as a dictator? Is there a center to fascism, or is that what we are calling "far left" these days?
1
@Ray Ciaf don't be blind to the fascism that is inherent in the far left. Alt Right, Alt Left is the same thing. Moving to far in either direction is promoting fascism. Your just choosing one flavor of fascism over another.
I believe holding primaries on the same day nationwide would help quell extremism on both the right and the left.
4
@JMWB How about not holding primaries at all? In my lifetime I remember Roosevelt, Truman, Dewey, Eisenhower, Stephenson, Nixon (yes), Kennedy, and more recently primaries have given us Clinton, Trump - 'nuff said? The guys in the smoke-filled rooms wanted to win, so they put up folks who might win rather than polarize. Primary voters - a distinct and immoderate minority of all voters - want to "make a statement" so a semi-reasonable candidate like Romney has to destroy himself in the primaries to get the nomination.
2
@C. Richard, that's why I think nationwide primaries all held on the same day would push candidates to the center.
1
I think a savvy progressive candidate would have a good sporting chance. The world is not the same as it was 20 yrs ago. A wide range of people are unhappy with the level of influence corporations have. A wide range of people actually want Medicare for all.
Hillary was an unpopular candidate on the progressive side because of her foreign policy, because of her centrist(leaning towards right) economic policies and close ties to corporations. I think she was also unpopular among independents for different reasons, and the DNC did her no favours by acting like this was a coronation (a term I saw in the NYT more than once in 2016). Ppl don’t like to think they are forced into a choice and will try to rebel.
5
How far left is too left? Simple take the Hillary test.
If you are an identity obsessed, east coast liberal, never met a war, trade, agreement, Wall Street banker I did not like, elect me because I am a woman (of women candidates) and condemn today's man for three million yrs. of existence, you are too far left and giving Trump another term.
If you are a modern progressive democrat that will address the issues that Trump demagogued, like loss of rust belt blue collar jobs, common sense immigration policy, infrastructure repair and most of all national, affordable quality health care you can beat Trump with your eyes closed.
Obama did a version of it in 2008 ie ran as an American and not as a black and served two terms.
Hillary didn't learn and ran as a woman and not as an American and was cast onto the dust pile of history.
10
@Paul
Have you looked at the 8-year record of the Obama admin with regard to both domestic and foreign policy. Disappointing is as good as it gets, disastrous in most cases - especially in all the foreign conflict areas that Obama handed over to Joe Biden. Seriously, do some homework there. It is appalling.
2
Ah, yes. Concentrate on the fringe left, which will never prevail, and ignore the radical right, which is rapidly cementing itself into power.
4
Trump’s policy agenda, as was his platform, is not “very right-wing.”
3
I think it is quite clear now that far too many Americans just do not understand the crisis that is happening now and even more so ahead of them and that the "status quo" corporate/establishment STILL wishes Americans to believe "moderation and hope" is the way out of it.
As Pulitzer prize winning novelist Christopher Hedges wrote in his recent book "America, The Farewell Tour", hope and optimism without action is the most dangerous inaction Americans can take and that is what Trump and the "Trumpublicans" are hoping for and, despite all that has happened to the country and the democratic party in recent years, to still think that a corporate/establishment neo-liberal centrist pragmatist democratic presidential candidate is the answer, you are sadly mistaken.
3
The ultra left progressive wing of the Dems scares the hell out of me. Trump, as he was last time, is very beatable but are these ideologues going to screw this up and we're stuck with Trump again!? The future of our country, the constitution, our way of life is at stake. I want a moderate with the best chance of winning and right now that looks like Biden.
8
Trump would blow Biden away.
Sanders is the only one who can beat Trump on his own turf, the incumbancy.
1
Here we go again with that old "left-v-right" chestnut. Some of us recognized the paradigm shift to an "insider-v-outsider" dynamic before the 2016 election. Some came to recognize it after the fact. Many more (especially on the NYT editorial board) still just don't get it. Here's a simple metric: if you are an "expert" who didn't take Trump seriously, who didn't see any of this coming, who repeatedly told us that this couldn't really happen - then please, by all means, remove the word "electable" from your vocabulary.
6
As soon as Trump won the election, I knew that there would be endless discussion about why, and all things would be posited and argued, rather than the one overwhelming fact: Hillary Clinton was a repellent candidate to anyone who didn't subscribe to her not-so-passive aggression (and clumsiness as a candidate). Her political positions did not vary much from Obama's. The electorate that put Obama into the WH twice is the same one that allowed Trump to go there, by default.
Now if the Democrats force their candidate to commit to the far-left, immature proposals of the Democratic primary voters, they will have found a new way to lose the Presidency. The media could help by supporting moderate, reasonable Liberals. (not a contradiction in terms.)
6
It is fine to support left wing progressive ideas. It is quite another thing to support a left wing progressive candidate for President. To win elections you have to be able to count. Democrats took back the House in 2018 by flipping several Republican House districts. These same districts are essential to win the White House in 2020. The number of Republican seats that were flipped by a left wing progressive candidate was zero. And even if a Sanders type candidate did somehow manage to win the White House it will mean exactly nothing if Democrats don't also regain control of the Senate. There is no way you are going to flip Republican Senate seats with a Socialist/Democrat at the head of the ticket; no way. By all means, support left wing progressive ideas, but anyone who supports a left wing progressive for President has a death wish. Please learn how to count before it is too late. You would have thought liberals learned an important lesson from the 2016 election, but sometimes they seem awfully dense
9
Journalists and pundits love to portray our political divisions as a spectrum. Where a candidate is placed along the spectrum, according to this theory, indicates electability.
I think, rather, electability is based on leadership and ideas. An idea may be seen as either left or right, but a better metric would be whether it's good or bad. Those with good ideas and the leadership qualities to make progress on them are electable.
Progressives are the ones with ideas. Hillary probably had a lot of good ideas too, but I think she was a little weak in enunciating them during her campaign. Most good conservative ideas have already been overworked; all that remain are the dregs.
So Democrats will never get elected by pretending to be Republicans. It's like to old adage: 'never argue with an idiot; they will drag you down to their level and beat you because they have more experience there.'
3
Why reparations?
"... housing segregation, racism, and Jim Crow credit policies created an inescapable, but hard to detect, economic trap for black communities and their banks. The Catch-22 of black banking is that the very institutions needed to help communities escape the deep poverty caused by discrimination and segregation inevitably became victims of that same poverty. Not only could black banks not -control the black dollar- due to the dynamics of bank depositing and lending but they drained black capital into white banks, leaving the black economy with the scraps. Baradaran challenges the long-standing notion that black banking and community self-help is the solution to the racial wealth gap. These initiatives have functioned as a potent political decoy to avoid more fundamental reforms and racial redress. Examining the fruits of past policies and the operation of banking in a segregated economy, she makes clear that only bolder, more realistic views of banking's relation to black communities will end the cycle of poverty and promote black wealth.
"The Color of Money: Black Banks and the Racial Wealth Gap"
.Author: Mehrsa Baradaran
Black people are still alive that remember the stacked deck they were dealt from. Reparations indeed...
2
@brogeorge Sorry, but what some banks decided more than 50 years ago is NOT my fault, any more than slavery is my fault. Nor is it the fault of most working class whites, and it is outrageous to suggest they pay.
The question should be how far is too right? Are we back to feudal lords with the power of meting out death sentences and collecting taxes on the serfs while living lavishly off the proceeds of the government as visioned in the Powell Memorandum?
Let us stop chastising the humane left and start calling out the inhumane right-wingnuts.
6
I will not vote for Trump and voted for Clinton and even support switching to a healthcare system similar to that of Australia (single basic care).
However, I will not vote democratic and can't envision myself doing so ever again. The fears of trump and trump-ism are massively overblown, and many democratic positions are far more detrimental then anything trump has TRIED (mostly failed) to do.
The party is ridiculous and does not support any of my personal interests from an objective stand point or any long term economic and security interests of this country. Every economic policy idea generalizes to giving out free money.
Their new "enthusiastic" voices believe printing money can pay for anything they want. And the democratic version of multiculturalism entails electing anti semitic Somali refugees.
In Europe immigration policies have made cities in first world countries look like third world slums. I walked through them. Jewish schools need to have soldiers protecting them in France.
The entire political debate and system has gone off the deep end (left and right), I have little to no faith in our form of democracy anymore. People have forgotten how states function. We need serious constitutional change. Talent is no longer being elected or vetted.
I do not believe in many republican policies especially on abortion/climate change. However, I will be voting Republican. National security and economic stability outweigh my other concerns by a long shot.
11
@2-6 With you!
Mark this Date, I’ll call it right NOW : Harris and Beto, in that order, for the WIN. Harris : go ahead, try to find a black Woman that will not actually show up and vote, for her. Plus many, many other middle- aged and older Women, and many Men. Beto: put him on the ticket, and WE will have the largest youth Vote, since 2008. And TEXAS will go Blue. Guaranteed.
We “ just “ have to survive until then. And imagine Harris and Trump, in a debate. She will Destroy him. Bigly.
4
Appealing both and smart but little experience. You may be right about Texas which would change the world.
1
@Phyliss Dalmatian
Neither is qualified or capable, certainly not on global foreign policy and not even on domestic and economic policy.
Ed's never met a progressive idea he can't smear
4
The Dems will lose because they refuse to give up on the one thing most Americans are dead set against and that is illegal migration. Stop digging that hole.
11
quoting multiple articles, papers and studies that harp on extreme candidacy.....??
this is the "Opinion" you choose to offer?
"if you can't beat them join them"... in engaging in stupidity, inanity and partisan conduct is THE DUMBEST advice anyone could possibly offer......
no thanks
1
Any democratic candidate who even mentions the word, "reparations" will not get elected. The republicans are praying for them to mention it ... they are chomping at the bit. All the democrats have to do is stay slightly left of center and they can beat Trump ... but it looks like they are going to blow it.
9
I'm waiting for one of the candidates to see the light and suggest a coalition of Democratic wise minds to address the obvious need for a new or revised healthcare system, however we can get there by merging ideas from the ACA, Medicare and Medicaid and government moderated insurance plans. Keep Medicare for the elders to preserve trust. Get on the same page by addressing realistic possibilities.
Maybe it's incrementalism, but but that doesn't suck as much as accepting the current mishmash, monstrosity that is our "healthcare industry". Let's get deliberate.
I'm sure that coalition building can bring us to more realistic goals for infrastructure building, abatement of greenhouse gases and realignment of college costs and college loan costs, as well. These things won't happen with only a President from the Democratic party. It is time to change minds with action. These are things that eventually must happen, or we'll all be dead. This is definitely less sexy than Green New Deals, but spooking people about the costs of change is no small barrier.
I'm personally ready for strong action, but I don't really believe that my neighbors are, and they have no reason to trust that they will easily see the light.
1
@Betsy B The irony is that both Medicare and SS are programs created by yesterday's Democrats to be fair to seniors, and they will be destroyed by today's Democrats, who really don't care about seniors. That's where we are.
Mr. Edsall is doing the electorate a disservice by highlighting what separates Democrats and Progressives on the margins and not talking about the considerable common ground we share with each other and even independents and moderate Republicans. Maybe discussion of and finding common ground on policies that are attractive to most Americans (east, west, north, south and everything in between) will engage those that wanted a change last time and gave us the current abomination in chief. It might even encourage voting by those that sat out 2016 because they were looking for ideological purity from the Democratic candidate which no candidate can or should deliver. It comes down to a binary choice on election day. Sitting out or voting for a third party may feel good that day, but it is what brought us our present national leadership. (How does that vote sit with you today after two years of this moronic joker/jackass?) And it goes beyond the presidency. Senate, House and local elections also matter. Imagine how different things would be today if Mitch McConnell (another disgusting human being) were not in the Senate today. Kentucky could have saved us from his toxic leadership.
1
A real forward-thinking Democratic presidential candidate will start telling Trump's base (example-by-example) how Trump policies are working to their detriment.
People know how bad coal is for their health; they have relatives whose lives have been shortened by coal-related health issues.
Trump's base has been effected by the evil malice of their own state leaders refusing to extend Medicaid.
Trump's base is negatively impacted by lack of vocational training support.
Trump's base is negatively impacted by the current Social Security Windfall Elimination provision which takes 40% of their Social meager Security benefits if they've ever worked under another pension(no matter how small). Trump is currently planning to TAKE billions from Social Security's disability funds of which many of Trump's based rely on.
In short: A Democratic candidate for 2020 needs to tell Trump voters exactly what he has done "to" them in stark terms and stop trying to "win them over" by polite rhetoric.
A Democratic who can bring "fire in the belly" and tell America what * Government* can do for them (that old thing called Government -of-by-and-for the People) stand a good chance.
3
Mr. Edsall, I most often appreciate your columns and the many voices you bring into them.
However, we must be honest with ourselves about how ill our society has become and how it continues to grow more ill.
Moderate "medication" may only be a deceptive balm and accomplish only a temporary illusion of "doing something."
Grave illnesses require major commitments to healing.
Discouraging people's belief in hope and healing by labeling what may be the only way to healing as "radical" is likely just another manifestation of the essential illness of denying people--humans--what they need for their well-being and hope of flourishing.
Please, no more "horse race" analyses distracting us from what is essential. Please, no more investments in jobs for academic political theorists claiming their territory.
Please focus on the real needs of humans and how to persuade more humans to commit to the healing we need.
3
This issue really sums up the difference between Republicans and Democrats. If you're a Republican, as long as you're anti-choice and pro-gun, you cando and say pretty much anything you want. Democrats are so busy worrying about offending potential voters that they trash their own policy positions instead of trying to even defend them.
There's a reason why Republican voter turnout is so much more consistent than Democratic turnout: the GOP understands that political success follows catering to your political base. Trump has a 90% approval rating among Republicans- no democrat is going to peel away those voters by playing it safe in the middle, those votes are staying right where they are.
The 2016 election was a massive case study on whether Republicans would vote for a moderate who made a conscious effort to tack to the center whenever possible over an obviously unqualified candidate. We all know how that turned out. LEARN FROM IT.
5
@Greg
The reason the GOP turns out voters is conservative fire breathing thumper/Vatican religion. It has been so since 1979.
That's why Democrats need to stabilize and unify at the well-oiled humming center, where voters demonstrably were in 2016 and in 2018, without disparate identity politics opportunists flinging off into space.
1
It is not at all helpful, or even relevant, to poll voters on outlier questions such as reparations for slavery. Democrats need to do what Republicans, particularly Trump, do so well - find a way of talking to people that resonates. Yes, there are differences among voters, particularly when it comes to social agendas, such as the right to opt for abortion. There are SO many other issues that we have in common. We all want to make a living wage. None of us want wealthy people to become even more wealthy and none of us would vote for a double standard of justice. None of us wants to watch jobs go overseas and many of us have doubts about trickle down economics. Most people believe in religious freedom and most would probably adopt a "live and let live" stance if they were not influenced by propaganda AND the inability of Democrats to get their beliefs across in novel ways that make sense. For example, if I were a politician, I would say, "Hey - imagine what it would be like if we all paid into ONE pot for healthcare. That ONE pot would be able to offer the same, improved, services to all. Don't let Republicans scare you with words like "Communist" and Socialist." They protect insurance companies. This is just good business. And don't let them tell you that Government is incompetent. How many of you got your Medicare Cards right on time?" Etc. Listen to MSNBC night - same coverage, same phrases, which non-MSNBC watchers cannot relate. We can do better.
1
It doesn't matter how far left they go they cannot beat the new voting machine hacking, gerrymandering, and suppression that is scheduled to come on line for 2020. If you thought 2016 was bad wait for this one. They have had four unobstructed years to plan this out and put the fix in place.
1
It seems to be all hands on deck at the Times to take down the party's left and Sanders in particular. The questions asked is a legitimate one. But there are differences that Trump way want to steamroll, but the Times shuldn't. For example, Sanders is (as Ross Douthat pointed out) entirely against open borders, abolishing ICE, etc. and has said that talk about reparations is empty talk because we don't know what we're talking about. The Times shouldn't be doing Trump's work or Biden's for them.
2
@David The question asked is legitimate, but it should be immediately followed by "How far left is left enough?" If Democrats must be moderate, let them be "moderately moderate", not "moderate at all costs" as Hillary Clinton was.
Radical means root.
There are no Democrats offering a "radical" solution to any of our national problems. Pretty much they offer us the system we have now with a more equitable distribution of wealth and an improvement of the social safety net. An updated FDR New Deal.
Here is a radical idea, for example: a ban on monoculture farming throughout the nation's agricultural system and the substitution of polyculture as a first step to a truly sustainable food supply. Can it be done? Should it be done? How would it be done?
I would love a serious public debate on such a substantive issues, on any policy that strikes at the "roots" of our current environmental, political, and economic problems. But such discussions are too "radical."
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."--Henry David Thoreau
3
* To supplement an enthusiastic low-skill labor force protected by universal labor laws, enact a robust immigrant work visa system, with an actively monitored national worker database. Limit annual immigration to population-replacement levels (a mature, low-fertility population will have plenty of slots), with humanitarian migration given priority over economic migration. All dependents of migrant labor become citizens at 150% of their age at most-recent entry. Adult immigrants time-in to citizenship after 10 years of labor.
* Taxes on high-end healthcare services provided by private insurance fund basic healthcare services.
@Len Arends
Part 1 nearby
The issue is how far right is the Trump Administration: Individual liberty v. the common good. Who are we now?
First and foremost I believe in STOPPING the Republicans at all levels of government and power throughout this country, and that ain't gonna happen by talking about asking the Treasury to write out checks for slave reparations. As such, I'm not on the AOC "who dis" bandwagon and those similarly on the extreme left. A "Green New Deal"? I believe in environmental protections and having expansive goals is great, but POLICY IMPLEMENTATION and WINNING ELECTIONS come first.
Let's face it, Republicans are masters at selling their souls for power. That’s why little Marco and lying Ted bolted to Trump Tower after the election looking for favors. Conversely, Democrats have always eaten their own, such as when the Bernie Bro Brigade attacked Clinton supporters for not being “progressive" notwithstanding a rise in the federal minimum wage, paid family leave and reforming criminal justice had ALWAYS been on her agenda. Alas, that wasn't good enough for them so a fractured party confronted an obscene GOP candidate who was elected and today is ruining this country. Still, who do I vote for? I HOPE the Democrats nominate someone I can proudly support (Harris or Buttigieg) but if they don't and nominate someone I don't like (Sanders or Warren) I hold my nose and vote for them just the same, as such is my political reality in today's USA.
* In the interest of an ever-more prosperous society, corporations should have a primary incentive to provide real goods and services before a "responsibility to shareholders" to return greater profits every three months (siphoning money up the food chain from the vulnerable and desperate to those already financially secure), so ...
Zero-percent corporate tax rate, but boardmembers must be subject to US income tax. (Corporations are NOT people, but their decision-makers are.)
A return to mid-20th-Century ultra-high taxes for ultra-high incomes.
Higher taxes for capital gains than dividends, with capital gains taxed at the max income tax rate.
* There are many citizens NOT mentally or physically suited to offer useful labor in a technologically advanced society. Yet society still has an interest in making use of them as dependable consumers, so ...
A universal basic income for all citizens (funded by the afore-mentioned wealth taxes) with a BONUS for those without children, so that self-destructive lifestyle choices are less likely to be emulated in the next generation. (People who find such a bonus appealing would not be likely to be good parents.)
@Len Arends
part 2 nearby
I'm not sure there is such a thing as a "moderate" anymore. Distinctions between "right" and "left," once defined by practical or philosophical positions on policy or civil rights, have devolved into theatrical expressionism. Hit the mark, strike the pose. Opinions are everything; unintended consequences don't exist. In fact, consequences themselves don't exist. Anything "bad" can always be blamed on outsiders, vanquished opponents, previous administrations, or appointees you no longer like.
During the 2016 campaign, I thought it was bizarre to see voters who said they were trying to decide between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Obviously, policy had little to do with it. These restless, impatient citizens wanted, to borrow the fashionable term from the technology sector, a "disrupter." Any disrupter.
1
I'm having a problem with your first sentence. I don't agree that moderation is out of fashion. Democrats are very well aware that we need a unity candidate in order to defeat Trump. And anyone who has followed the fortunes of Obamacare over the past ten years should understand that massive new government programs are very, very unlikely to happen. If you want to look at the true agenda of the Democratic party, look to the House. They are focusing on tangible, achievable plans to improve the lives of Americans.
1
Follow the money. If you do, you see that Democrats fall into two camps, those who's campaigns are financed by the rich, and those who are not.
The first group includes Schumer, who's top campaign contributors are all from Wall Street, and Pelosi, whose top campaign contributors are all Silicon valley companies (Facebook is number one, Google number 2)
The second group includes Sanders and AOC, whose campaigns are financed by small donations
The first group claims to be progressive but if you look at what it does, it acts to support the rich. Schumer works on lowering the taxes on hedge fund managers, Obama did not send a single banker to jail (Goldman Sachs was his single largest supporter in 2008)
As someone who believes that the most important political agenda for Americans is to remove the control of US politics from the Uber-Rich , I, in primaries, only vote for Democratic politicians that run on small donations.
4
I think it's very much about how the issues are framed. Right now, Republicans have been most successful at framing the debate.
I think reparations is an idea that should appeal to conservatives. The people who worked so hard to protect inheritances from taxation should respect the fact that millions of African Americans were denied their rightful inheritance because of slavery and it's aftermath.
Advocating for more streamlined billing and uniform pricing is necessary because healthcare is becoming increasingly unaffordable. The different prices doctors are paid/services covered based on which insurer they are dealing with is a costly administrative headache, and contributes to our lack of transparent pricing. One of Obama's biggest failures in the healthcare debate was to pretend that employer provided healthcare was working well, when in fact premiums are taking an ever bigger proportion of employees salaries, deductibles are increasing and more and more people are working in a gig economy. Plus the lie about being able to keep your insurance if you like it was that employees are NOT the ones who decide which plans the company will offer. Freeing insurance from being tied to your employer would free people up to take more risks in finding work.
Companies love to say that salary is not the only thing motivating workers, yet time and again we are told that taxes will discourage hard work. A sense of fair play is just as important to humans as the ability to profit.
1
What's the message and solution ?
ROOSEVELTISM
See his 1944 "Second Bill of Rights" speech.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights
We need an FDR 2.0. And that is a guy named Bernie.
The left must remind the citizenry who and what policies brought the golden age of prosperity.
FDR and his New Deal era policies.
So called "Socialism" is American as apple pie and Americans love it !
Just call it ROOSEVELTISM !
And that scares Republicans.
Conservatives are afraid to mention FDR's legacy because they know America honors him next to Lincoln and Washington and is ranked greatest President of the 20th century.
In fact, conservatives still call FDR a "socialist" and his programs like social security,labor rights, high tax rates on rich, GI Bill that provided free college to returning vets, etc. ( LBJ was a New Dealer too, hence Medicare)
CONS also know that the Greatest Generation elected that "socialist" to a record FOUR times ! I guess America's Greatest Generation was "socialist" too eh ? Western and northern Europe, Canada, Australia loved his "socialist" New Deal so much that they copied it and Reaganism dismantled it. In Norway they don't call it "socialism" , they call it true democracy and freedom just like FDR did. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights
6
Just like his last column about this, this too comes dangerously close to trolling. My guess is that the Democrats themselves are trying to figure out how far left is too far left to attract the younger people on which the 20200 election is likely to depend, and that by the time they get to their convention they will have figured all of that out. Can we also stop pretending that political scientists are as liberal as historians and sociologists? They aren't.
3
The words "left" and "right" have become meaningless. Democrats should focus on CLASS issue and how they will ease the burdens of life for AVERAGE AMERICANS. If they are fools enough to focus on cultural issues, then Trump and the GOP will win.
7
I, a moderate Democrat, will vote for any D who wins the nomination. If it’s Sanders with his pipe dreams or Warren with hers, Biden with his long experience, Harris with her hope, whoever it is, he or she has my vote. A president is one branch of the government. Unfortunately, the current occupant doesn’t get that. Job one: oust him.
4
@Harry: The choice really does come down to one party that wants to abandon government altegether, and the other with 50,000 conflicting ideas what to do with it.
3
To be honest, it doesn't really matter what my opinion is. The Electoral College invalidates my vote, because Missouri is too red to be the tipping state for a Democrat. Missouri's primary is after Super Tuesday, so who knows how many candidates will be left to choose from.
Don't get me wrong, I am still going to vote. If Trump wins, it is going to be because of the EC and not the popular vote.
3
@Stephen
Not necessarily. Much of modern politics is about disenfranchising opposing party voters from their candidate. If the democrats choose a terrible candidate, many wont vote. Trump may well win the popular vote. Also trump may be attracting new voters etc... etc... its very up in the air right now.
2
Both camps can dither endlessly, seeking to not upset the apple cart, and I say go ahead, at your peril.
Unfortunately two primary concerns loom overhead and unless we address them, voting will be the last of our worries.
Imminent
1. The planet is warming. Either stop carbon output now or perish slowly and expensively through an intensified hydrologic cycle.
2. Health care will drive most Americans into bankruptcy by 2030. Either retain your private and expensive insurer or adopt social medicine. It’s that simple.
Urgent
1. Cybercrime. The US must make it expensive to hack. Therefore follow the incoming IP to its source and destroy it. Invest here.
2. Immigration. Either fix the country of origin or charge people $10,000 - $50,000 for access. Hardship cases should be less. But bottom line here is people will pay to stay.
3. Adopt a defensive posture regarding self defense. Policing the World is expensive. Don’t worry about China or Russia, they can’t afford it either. But ultimately, they will test the waters and they will try to invade.
4. Infrastructure, schools, yada, yada, yada.
Democrats be bold! Dithering for a Centrist position will solve nothing.
Let the Republicans hang themselves. They are SO corrupt and inept it’s impossible for them not to do otherwise unless you fall into their ignorance and debate trap.
4
@PC
1. Climate change is real and problematic. However, Americans will never see this directly other the devaluation of beachfront property. Other affects will be relatively easily mitigated. It will be expensive but spread out over decades not very noticeable. 2nd, 3rd world countries will be hit the worst.
2. Healthcare, its not that simple but in general your right, if and only if it is implemented well. Given that Obama admin couldn't build a website I have my doubts.
3. Immigration: it just needs to stop. Japan is the model.
4. Cyber: spot on, huge problem area.
5. Defense, depends if you either A want to learn Chinese or B sit back and watch the world go down in flames. (We will probably be fine, a few billion people in Asia may not be).
Being able to afford something hasn't stopped Russia yet, also its pretty easy to afford something if you take it by force.
6. Infrastructure, again spot on but its not just the idea its the implementation. If you have a good idea and implement it poorly its a bad idea. Don't throw good money after bad. Look at California high speed rail or NY state edu, we spend 25k per child per year and it is still terrible.
The dems will never do any of this even if they win, they have neither the will or the ability.
4
And Biden currently leads the field by a comfortable margin. Vaguely moderate candidates like O'Rourke are doing great. The Democratic gains in 2018 were mostly led by moderates winning red districts.
This column seems to me to be substantially off-base.
3
Is Beto "vaguely moderate"? Or is he "vague and moderate"?
4
Centrist Democrats often claim that particular policies cannot gain a majority, or that they're too expensive, or that particular politicians are unelectable. What they really mean is that they do not support these policies or politicians. I like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama well enough, but, like most centrists, they always tell the progressives to compromise. It would be nice if just once they urged the centrists to consider supporting more progressive views and candidates. Also, I have long since tired of the canard, here uttered by President Obama, that progressives enforce ideological "purity," while centrists are pragmatic. Centrists, including Obama, also have an ideology.
3
The question of how far left is too far left probably can be answered by looking at the one previous election that was a mirror of what I fear 2020 will be: the 1972 contest between Richard Nixon and George McGovern.
In both cases, the Republican candidate was an odious, lying, and vulgar bully. But in 1972, the Democratic base chose a candidate proposing a massive shift in federal policy including a guaranteed annual income, heavier taxes on the wealthy, legalization of marijuana, and a sharply reduced military budget. The party's base was enthralled, but the public handed the Democrats their worst defeat since the start of the twentieth century. The moral of the story is that while moderation may be unpalatable, moderation is none the less necessary.
1
@Quiet Waiting McGovern's loss wasn't just due to his actual policy positions- it was also the result of him picking an unstable and unreliable running mate and fallout resulting from a particularly ugly primary season (one that made 2016 look like a 6th grade field trip). Not to mention he had the disadvantage of running against in incumbent.
Polls show most Americans are for Medicare for all. The problem is that most Americans don't understand that their current plan will be outlawed, 1,000,000 employees of private insurance companies will be fired and 1,000,000 federal government employees will be hired, and tax rates will be raised astronomically.
Vermont really really wanted to enact Medicare for all. But after they crunched the numbers, the Medicare budget would have greatly exceeded the total budget, and sales tax and income tax increases would have crushed their economy.
7
@Erik...."and tax rates will be raised astronomically....But what will the net difference in cost be, which is what really matters. Canada has a government run single-payer system that provides universal coverage and they pay 40% less per person than we do. Are we that much dumber than Canadians? Any one who claims that taxes will increase excessively ignores the fact that every single country that has a government run single-payer system with universal coverage, collectively pays a lot less for healthcare than we do. Any one who wants to save money should be in favor of Medicare for all.
3
@Erik
Raise taxes on the rich and corporations instead of cutting them. Put that money into universal healthcare. Everyone has to give. There will never be enough for the greedy and they know it.
2
@W.A. Spitzer France, England, Australia all allow supplemental insurance companies.
Medicare does NOT eliminate premiums. And for half the country with incomes above the median, the premiums can be substantial. That better off half gets better coverage through their employers; and they will not give up the better coverage plus accept higher taxes.
7
@CitizenJ The Democrats call it Medicare for all, but that's really don't want that, especially Bernie Sanders. They want Medicaid for all. You walk into the doctor, waive your card, and everything is taken care of, just like that.
2
@CitizenJ: Medicare buries us in paper and then blows us off when we report that some doctor didn't do this or another doctor did the wrong procedure at thousands of dollars of cost.
@CitizenJ Also, since no one has done ANYTHING AT ALL for seniors since the Ford Administration, seniors rely on private MA and Medigap policies to pay Medicare's co-pays. And Bernie wants to end private insurance, making health care in accessible to seniors and throwing millions of private health care workers out on the street.
At the risk of stating the obvious: Neither the younger, more liberal Democrats nor the older, more moderate Democrats are sufficiently numerous to win elections on their own. They need to bridge their differences and form a coalition, much as the Democrats did during the New Deal and after. (Recall that in the 1970s, the party's representation in Congress included both Senator John Stennis of Mississippi and Bella Abzug.) Failure to reach an accommodation will enable the extreme right to maintain a stranglehold on power for many, many years.
5
"We must not blind ourselves to the fact that democratic institutions develop the sentiment of envy in the human heart to a very high degree. This is not so much because such institutions give everyone the means to equal everyone else as because those means continually prove unavailing to those who employ them. Democratic institutions awakened and flatter the passion for equality without ever being able to satisfy it to the full. No sooner does full equality seem within the people's reach than it flies from their grasp, and its flight, as Pascal said, is eternal. The people passionately seek a good that is all the more precious because it is close enough to be familiar yet far enough away that it cannot be savored. The chance of success spurs them on; the uncertainty of success vexes them. They struggle, they tire, they grow bitter. Anything that is beyond them in any quarter then seems an obstacle to their desires, and no form of superiority is so legitimate that the sight of it is not wearisome to their eyes."
-- Alexis de Tocqueville, "Democracy in America"
2
I'm in my mid-40's. As long as I can remember, Republicans have labeled any bold Democratic policy proposals as "socialism." Indeed, even before I was born, the Republicans - via Ronald Reagan - famously characterized Medicare as socialism too.
This is to say that maybe Democrats ought not be afraid of such a label. No matter what they propose - even centrist policies - will be demonized as socialism by the GOP. This is their inevitable playbook. So don't be afraid to be bold.
The irony of course is that none of what any of the Democrats are proposing is at all radical when one compares social policies in America and those in other developed countries. By and large, most Dems are proposing social programs that have proven to work elsewhere, and to lead to better health outcomes and broader economic security. The real radicalism is from the far-right Republican party, and its mix of white nationalism and oligarchic policies.
6
@Vin Yes, we all remember the social program called the War on Poverty initiated by Dems. Apparently it must not have been very successful since there's still poverty. It would be great to get a full accounting of what has been spent on the African American community. And do explain what an "oligarchic" policy is.
1
This piece had so many thoughts that made no sense to me it is hard to know where to begin. Since when was DJT a "right wing" Republican. Plainly stated, he was a demagogue whose views on trade and foreign engagement had no resemblance to the "right wing" party base. Ever heard of Ted Cruz? It is true that DJT developed a new and overwhelming concern with the unborn. Yeah, right.
Many other quotes in this article make no sense. The primaries will show us where the energy is, and if the party is wise - and the leading candidates are not lying, cheating, immoral demagogues, than, those are the people the party needs to support. It would be wise if the party did not attempt to suppress the candidate that creates the energy.
4
As an open-minded leftist, I have no issue with others arguing for “moderation” IF they argue based on the SUBSTANCE, not an analysis of a conglomeration of opinion polls. The funny thing is those closer to the center are clamoring for moderation and compromise based on assumed electoral outcomes when they can’t win one themselves! The “circular firing squad” Obama mentioned the other day was a gross exaggeration but also goes both ways, as do the “purity tests” except the center masks it in electoral and fiscal arguments when those in the party stray to the left and become “impure.”
2
Okay, progressives, time to roll over and play dead again to the centrist, sensible, do-nothing Democrats. That's what brought us Trump, the worst, most incompetent and most divisive president in our history.
Sadly and tragically, I think Edsall's arguments are mostly correct: a progressive candidate cannot win a presidential election in contemporary America, not even against the likes of Donald Trump.
How did this ever happen to this once great country? But it did, over the last 40 years. What we once thought of as a common sense vision for the nation has been discarded as just so much radial leftism.
2
@hark....Can you count? You can talk too a sensible centrist Democrat; you can't talk to a right wing Republican. And please explain how you are going to be able to do anything if you don't also retake the Senate; and there is no way you can take back Republican Senate seats with a Socialist/Democrat at the head of the ticket. Getting some of what you want is a lot better than getting nothing, and please learn how to count.
1
I'm sorry but Open Borders, Free Medicare, Free College and Slavery Reparations isn't going to elect anyone other than Trump!
240
“Free Medicare” is an oxymoron since we all pay for it. Same goes for free college for that matter but it is great that NYT gives positive reinforcement to some of its slower readers’ comments.
22
@Aaron The Democratic candidate will run on exactly none of the right wing bugaboos.
17
@Aaron
I'm sorry, but exactly which candidate advocates open borders?
12
The real question is not how far left is too far left for Democrats, but rather how far unConstitutional, authoritarian, fascistic, racist, and just plain ignorant is too unConstitutional, authoritarian, fascistic, racist, and just plain ignorant for Republicans. And the answer, unfortunately, seems to be that there is no such thing as too much for Republicans. And that might be the death knell for the United States of America.
It would be nice if you wrote about this rather than your regular anti-progressive diatribe. I personally have some misgivings about Medicare for All, but it's a hell of a lot better than what the other side is proposing, so if comes down to choosing one or the other, I'll be in favor of the Constitution.
2
I've been reading Joel Mokyr's history of the British economy from the Glorious Revolution to the Crystal Palace Exhibition. One of the things he stresses is the importance of beliefs, despite economists' hesitance to discuss the subject. He points to the changing definition of the word freedom, from the freedom to exclude via restrictionist laws, unions, guilds, and organizations, to the freedom to engage in the economic activity of one's choosing.
If, however, one looks at leftist definitions of the word freedom nowadays, one is forever encountering mockery: "The freedom to starve"; "The necessity of selling one's time and one's soul." If this is allowed to spread unchallenged, it is naïve to think there will be no consequences.
On the Left, there is an inane focus on distribution with ne'er a thought spared for production. We hear much praise of the Nordic nations, but not of their ease of doing business, only of their social programs. Why is the latter more important than the former? And how will progress occur if our entrepreneurial system is eroded, if our dynamism is squelched? How will living standards grow?
"Those fighting for free competition and free enterprise do not defend the interests of those rich today. They want a free hand left to unknown men who will be the entrepreneurs of tomorrow and whose ingenuity will make the life of coming generations more agreeable. They want a way left open for further economic improvements." -- Ludwig von Mises
I did not realize the Nordic countries were on the brink of collapse so thank you for that. If even if they are, people there still have higher social mobility, life expectancy and general happiness based on study after study.
2
The election is the Democrats to lose, and if they continue on their current path they will surely lose. Our first goal must be to win. Unless we win it doesn't matter whether we are radical or not. Research shows the majority of the electorate is moderate. So if we are to win we must be moderate. What good is being radical if we can't win?
9
How dumb do the Democrats have to be (by going too far left) to ensure a second term for Trump?
Beating Trump is the only thing worth voting for in a Demoratic candidate. All else is liberal fluff....
3
Why is it so hard for Dems to unify? Why? Maybe because it requires compromise. I don’t know. But unity of party is the only way Dems can win. It’s math. All Dems everywhere have to show up and vote, all for the same candidate, to win. That’s what it takes to beat Republican gerrymandering, voter suppression, favor in the Electoral College, etc. The Dems will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet again if they can’t all grow up and find a way to unify. A Dems and progressives will get a better outcome in the long run if trump is not president again. The drive to the extreme left will make many Dems and independents stay home.
4
Far enough left that I am probably now an independent.
8
How is it extremism to combat, in the most efficient ways possible, deaths cause by lack of health insurance and from climate change?
If you want health insurance that's universal, affordable, and simple to use -- ie, the best insurance possible -- then you want Medicare for All in its strongest form. Anything else isn't universal, affordable and simple.
For climate change, incrementalism -- eg, turning to natural gas as a bridge fuel -- will only put more CO2 in the air when we already have enough there for catastrophes.
What level of deaths does America need to see before embracing Medicare for All and a very aggressive Green New Deal?
2
Republican voters are more homogeneous, yes, but they are a minority. Democrats can and should easily win on economic issues, on whicj Republicans have NEVER delivered. Democrats should not be talking about ICE or reparations. These are not fundamental problems. Economic justice and affordable health care are.
4
For me, Dems need to set identity politics far aside, and concentrate on issues that matter to the 99%. So, I'd like to see certain frivolities far thrown to the wind (is Harris black enough? if Buttigieg gay enough?), and I'd like seniors (Biden, Bernie) come to grips with the fact that their time has passed, set ego aside, and to transition to mentor. A well-thought-out New Green Deal might be a good spearhead. Candidates such as Booker, Inslee, Buttigieg need to be heard, because they have experience dealing with the real problems of real people.
4
Despite being the only party offering real solutions and plans and forward-thinking proposals, the democrats are stunningly capable at losing elections. I think the problem is that they get lost in the bubble of their idealism and become distanced from the reality of what the American electorate is really like.
Campaigning on reparations? You're a dead man walking. This issue could be explored once someone is already elected, but to run on it is suicide.
Medicare for All? I love the idea (and the country is warming to it), but there are enough people suspicious of the costs, and the republicans will hammer that until it becomes a poison pill.
Free college tuition? Sounds amazing but see: Medicare for all.
The environment? This feels like an issue that could have traction with voters (see Thomas Friedman's opinion piece today) but only if it is painted as a real threat to actual Americans.
Unfortunately democrats have already been saddled as the socialist party who wants to open our borders to anyone. These are two very dangerous labels that the republicans will run ads for 24-7. Throw in the cost-inefficient programs they have on the table, and they are already at a severe handicap.
Donald Trump doesn't have to do anything, really. Just come out, as he does, and make fun of all of the above.
The DNC should start working NOW if they want to unseat Trump. Isolate his die-hard fans and start picking off those "maybes" that will decide the election.
11
Are you have to tell me is reparations are a cornerstone of the movement-
Trump wins by a landslide in 2020
10
Republican lite got us Donald Trump. No more Clintonian, Obamian middle of the road! Go Left or else.
Kirstan Neilson is just another Republican in the Democratic Party.
An 80% Top Tax is appropriate and NOT crazy, or even new. It once made America great. Do it again.
4
@Tracy Rupp the growing fascism of the intolerant far-left got us Trump. For ever action there is an equal and opposite reaction. You are just favoring one flavor or fascism over another.
In the polling question of liberal Vs Moderate comparing 1973 with 2018 r
Obama was wrong, in his halting, much publicized, unhelpful 'circular firing squad' pronouncement. Democrats need a cathartic Primary. Democrats need to rapidly thin the herd of its traditionalist, colorless incapacity to cease being the GOP's hapless dupes. I say assemble that metaphorical circular firing squad. Grow the list of contenders. Let them all have at it, in the same way that lawless Trump knocked over the Republican party's political careerists. Democrats must take the chance on youth, not Shumer, not Sanders, not Biden, even at the risk of losing. If it were the Madame Speaker in the Primary, then absolutely yes. That honourable lady was not Schumer tongue tied while in the presence of Trump. Cue that video of their exchange, with Shumer choosing to admire his own footwear, rather than stare Trump down and ruthlessly engage in the same manner that the House Speaker did. Those Democratic Patriarchs are all tainted, tired, conformist denizens of the swamp. It is time to bring on the brash, brazen, vigorous, vital youth, to transform this listing ship of state to a twenty first century age of new enlightenment, to the ultimate benefit of their children and their children's children.
2
Democrat candidates at this stage of the campaign are fighting one another for internet coverage. Who are they talking too? People who have all day to sit in front of a screen--mostly young, unemployed daydreamers with little or no stake in the economy who wish somebody would give them something for free: guaranteed income, reparations, free food, free rent. These are people who are willing to overturn everything; what do they care? For Democrats, talking further left means more media coverage, so for them it's leftward, ho!
4
@Ronald B. Duke This is an important point. Democrat candidates seem to be constantly playing for the "Twitter vote" framing and reframing their positions based on Tweets and reTweets. They fail to take into that there are only ~2million US Twitter accounts and over a few hundred million voters.
1
The Dems need to be only far enough left to win over a large number of voters in the Red states. They can win the Blue states,which are primarily on the coasts. Where they need the support is from the states in the rust belt and through the south.
1
Democrats won't win if AOC and Sanders, #MeTOO, PC, and #Blacklivesmatter supporters are happy. What percentage of minorities support a policy is less important than how many of them actually vote. Average Asians and Hispanics aren't very progressive either. The net loss, in case of a far-left candidate in general election, will doom Democrat party.
Left has a megaphone and social media now, and that isn't a good news. If things don't change, self destruction will follow.
7
"How Far Left Is Too Far Left for 2020 Democrats?"
More likely than not, you'll have a very good idea in the fall of 2020. All doubt will be removed after the 2020 election.
I assume the management of the NYT is paying attention, as most comments seem to recognize, the progressive voter has gone so far left, as to need a psychic to be reached.
Two years, of over the top allegations, followed by every possible appeasement, has left half of the country locked in the Twilight Zone. Those that escape, are going to be very angry, at having been lied to.
MSNBC and CNN need an intervention. Their stockholders should demand it.
8
How far left is too far? When Democrats wake up in November 2020 to read in the NYT that Donald Trump has been reelected, that’s far enough.
10
The Democrats' electoral strategy is to define themselves as 'Not Republicans'.
The fact that Pelosi and company are so upset, shows that AOC and friends are on the right track.
Also, I wonder what Pelosi thinks about Bernie being President. I'm sure she's just thrilled.
It seems that the main choice between what the two establishment parties offer is simply makeup on the pig or not. For myself, I choose humanity with a future!
1
Democrats tried the Republican lite approach in 2016, after having a Republican lite administration for 8 years, which passed a Republican oriented health care plan to funnel taxpayer subsidies to for profit insurers and providers. How'd that work out for the Democrats?
2
Excellent points Mr. Edsall. Democrats - please deeply consider that your primary goal is to defeat Mr. Trump through an Electoral College victory. Consider those words carefully- a strategy that simply wins a higher plurality of strongly "liberally inclined" voters is not likely to defeat Mr. Trump. While I do not suggest that Democrats abandon progressive policies- the independent vote and the voters inn Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc. must produce an Electoral College win for the Democrats. Please remember- many independents are not satisfied with Mr. Trump's policies, and lack of vision. Democrats do not need to "pile on" and simply win a higher percentage of the liberally inclined voter in New York, Massachusetts, California, Chigagoland, etc. After a Democratic victory, there will be many opportunities to introduce, debate an implement the progressive vision which Mr. Trump lacks. Democrats- do not devour your own.
2
The author reveals his prejudice early in the piece: "Why are these candidates willing to buck political tradition and heighten the risk of defeat on Nov. 3, 2020?"
The risk of defeat is in NOT running a leftwing populist The risk is in nominating another competent, corporate-friendly 'centrist.' Hillary Clinton's defeat taught you center right types nothing. I pay 22% federal tax on my little one-person company. A huge multinational in my industry pays 0% federal tax. Oligarchy is here, the dems can join them or stand with the rest of us.
3
For Democrats, the primaries is a minefield with powerful vested interest groups. They will be far left in primaries. And would moderate or would turn a blind eye in the elections.
How about finding the common ground policies or principles that can bring together the left, and prioritize the top 3-4 bread and butter ones which can win over a majority of voters?
- Protecting Medicare and SS
- Addressing the outrageous costs of health care (and we can't just "slow the rate of future growth," no, costs need to come down significantly). Doesn't have to be a single payer program to do this.
- Infrastructure
- Education/jobs training. Doesn't have to be free college to do this
- Middle class and small business tax cuts, offset by raising taxes on the wealthy.
Simple, straightforward, and certainly more than Republicans and Trump are willing to do.
2
First, "extremist"is the label of any policy proposal to the left or right of the political center. It is a placement description, not a judgment of the quality of the idea. If you can't understand the distinction, you won't have much luck at electoral politics.
Second, if you seriously think it is better for Democrats to "lose big" because it's better than losing small, please engage in some self-reflection. "Losing" means Donald Trump for four more years, a GOP Senate (likely in any event), and a possible swing of the House back to the GOP. That matters a lot.
2
Too many commenters her fail to distinguish between policy and politics. The best policies do not automatically succeed in an election. For, example, I would argue that a single payer health system would improve access, lower cost and in "the long run" would be the better system. But people will not just accept those assertions, they have to see it. Therefore, an incremental move in that direction has a better chance of being accepted. Likewise, climate change must be addressed because it is going to be disastrous for us over the long run. But policies have to be presented in a way that people can understand and that will not impose cost they cannot afford. Over the years, Democratic messaging has been inadequate to say the least. While I agree with much of the "Green New Deal," it's roll-out has been disastrous for the Democratic party. In short, to win, Democrats must do better messaging, must put more emphasis on issues that matter to "working class people", must recognize that Americans are scared-off by what is perceived as radical rhetoric and that we are still a socially conservative society. I would like to see a progressive candidate who understands the above and is therefore moderate and non-threatening in their rhetoric.
3
I wish the prospective presidential candidates who are promoting Medicare for All would get specific about how much it would cost and how it would work. What I mostly hear from politicians, journalists and a lot of regular people is that it would be terribly expensive. If we are talking about raising taxes to pay for it, figure out just what that extra tax bite would be. The extra taxes would be a lot less than people pay now in premiums, deductibles and co-pays. Another point that should be driven home is the fact that Medicare allows you to go to any doctor or other medical facility that you please. If people were given the facts, I don't think too many people would want to continue being slaves to the insurance companies. We call ourselves a free country, but there isn't much freedom when it comes to healthcare. Worrying about going broke if you get seriously ill is not freedom.
1
The past 25 years has been marked by "Establishment Liberalism", manifest by throwing a few socio-cultural bones to aggrieved parties - liberalism -and providing meat to the plutocrats - neo-liberalism. The Democratic party has been a marriage between small (l) and large (L) - phony - liberalism. i.e., the Clinton-Obama-Clinton approach. Many Democrats have had enough, as the outcome of the 2016 election had indicated. Sanders supporters stayed at home, as did many urban black voters in the "Blue Wall" states.
If defeating Trump is THE SERIOUS OBJECTIVE of the Democrats, then a real alternative to Trumpism is needed, not a modified version of it.
1
Going far left is playing to lose. The Democrats may pick an extreme leftist socialist as their candidate. But that assures Trump will be re-elected.
Go left, my democrat friends. Keep running left. The next generation will thank you, for re-electing Trump.
8
@EWG I agree. The rise of the far-left politics is what got Trump elected in first place.
1
We are not seeing a shift to the left but rather to the young. Away from a generation born on third base and to a generation fighting to have a chance at bat. Away from Baby Boomer Democrats for whom social justice and an opportunity for a middle class lifestyle was a political statement to a generation where they are essential rights worth fighting for.
Call it “extreme” if you like, but a change is coming.
3
The left has been running ever farther left. The vast American middle has not been following them, however.
9
Not much change: As always--middle matters the most. Defining that middle, or finding it, is problem for both sides.
But what Edsall overlooks, no surprise, is that our Sovietized mass-media will, as they did last time and have since Obama first took office, be pulling for the DNC Politburo candidate, no question.
5
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to eliminate ICE which would mean that every person in the world who wants to come here, and who could manage to do so, would be welcome to stay.
Her Green New Deal would guarantee "a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States".
These plans are way too radical for the average voter. They open our borders to everyone who wants to move here, and they guarantee every migrant a job.
11
@ann
I don't recall that she is running for President. Right now, she is representing her district, not yours.
Schiff is not running for President either but he keeps saying that he has secret information that Trump colluded with the Russians.
1
It's funny because, given how abhorrent Trump is -- and the majority of Americans feel that way -- you'd think it would be easy to find someone around whom to unify et voila! Problem solved. But I suppose, if the Dems had acted that way in 2016 we wouldn't be dealing with this problem now. Sitting on the sidelines here (I registered as an independent after the Gillibrand/Franken fiasco), I would put money on the Dems shooting themselves in the foot yet again, and somehow, allowing a man who shows himself again and again to be spectacularly unqualified for his position, to waltz back into the oval office for another four years.
5
The outlandish trillion(s) dollar progressive ideas being thrown about -- Green New Deal, free college, Medicare-for-all, even slavery reparations (?) -- do not appeal to the 50% of tax payors that wonder where their tax dollars are being spent.
Figure that only 56% of people in the entire U.S. pay federal taxes, and that about 6% of those would even favor more taxes for these plans. I do not see my fellow commuters, blue or white collar, voting against their take-home wages. Trump's tax legislation has already upped taxes in wealthy coastal blue suburbs and tony urban enclaves, so those people are not looking for even more taxes.
In the New York area, we have seen what AOC and her socialist ilk can do to tax-paying jobs -- drive them away -- while between Twitter posts she jets between DCA and LGA and enjoys a nice new condo in D.C. at tax payor expense.
Trillions of dollars and decades since the Great Society, and Democrats have yet to show any dollar-for-dollar value in these enormous tax-funded programs that are trotted out during each election cycle. Voters would like to see the value-added benefit of their tax dollars to their own family and community.
5
Edsall: Democrats will lose if they don't stick to whatever the Republicans establish as "the center."
Republicans, meanwhile, will win spouting the most extremist rubbish imaginable? This piece just does not sell. It's not only extremely out of touch, but it fails to realize that the arbitrary range it is operating in has been established by an ever-radicalizing right, which means that "the center" is operatively shifting evermore to the right. It makes no sense. At some point, one needs to say that enough is enough. Either have principles or admit that you stand for nothing. Prof. Edsall, you seem to stand for nothing. Why should we continue to operate in a frame established by the most extreme Republicans? It's operating within that frame, reacting to that frame, that causes the Democrats to lose. It's time to reframe things.
1
Nothing the Democrats are likely to do in their moderately leftward shift (by global standards) will make them anywhere as radical as the Republicans, who declared war on facts and reason some time ago.
1. Republicans ignore climate science and are taking de-regulatory action to make carbon emissions worse.
2. Republicans passed a bill in the House that would have taken health insurance away from 23 million people.
3. Republicans passed tax cuts that primarily help the rich and corporations, with individuals facing a tax increase after 2025 relative to the Obama baseline and permanent tax cuts for corporations. If the individual cuts are not extended, the top 1% will get 80% of the benefits after 2025.
Yes, Democrats that argue emotionally on social issues (abolishing ICE, reparations) need to be silenced. But Medicare for All or hybrid solution (e.g., lowering the Medicare age and expanding ACA subsidies) gets us from a very far right position back towards the global center.
3
How about simply pushing policies one believes are best for the common good, for the nation as a whole, and just let the voters decide?
1
What will you say if Trump wins the Electoral College again in 2020? The people have decided?
2
Left and right are nebulous concepts. What’s far-left in the US in terms of gun control will be center-right in New Zealand. But there is one term that is unambiguous: socialism. It means the government’s control of the means of production, and it is the poison that has destroyed Eastern Europe, Cambodia and Venezuela. Democrats who self-identify with this term claim their solidarity with this terrible tradition. Why should I vote for anybody who has forgotten the lessons of history or has never learned them in the first place?
2
Thomas Edsall has again offered help in thinking about the issues that divide us. We will be wrong, however, to tie our thinking and focus on a divide between 'Right' and 'Left', or even between 'Conservative' and 'Liberal/Progressive', turning difference into a win/lose war. Our existential 'battle' is between the power and danger of extreme concentrated wealth, and the growing weakness of 'all men' (and women). Neither 'Republican' nor 'Democratic' party adequately recognizes this threatening, and potentially fatal, reality. We need both representatives who identify what is working for the health of all our society (Conservatives), and representatives (Progressive/Creative) who identify what is not working and threatens our collective future. Both must help propose the changes which must be made and tested. Perhaps such a healthy and vital goal has never been the way our system of government has really worked, resulting in the very grave problems we now face. The enormous real problems caused by overpopulation, environmental devastation, war and climate change cannot be managed, let alone solved, by 'politics as usual'. How we all think about the the differing parts of our society, and choose the leadership which must lead us, will result in whether the great American (and Human) experiments succeed or fail. Currently we are failing.
It's a mistake to characterize politics on a single axis of left vs. right.
America does not trust its government.
America needs better government more than it needs more government.
The candidate who can make government work more efficiently, consolidating programs, making the civil service more efficient and customer focused, saving money, delivering more services for the same tax dollars, is that candidate left or right? liberal or conservative?
The candidate who can deliver good government will receive the permission of the people to deliver more government, whether that be Medicare for all, higher taxes, or any other new program.
Poll numbers are not votes. Poll numbers are a product marketed by polling companies and media. It is well-established that you can get a poll to say whatever you want it say, depending on who you ask, how you ask, etc. Yet poll numbers are presented in the media as if they represent objective truths.
Only votes are votes, and only votes can shift control of the government away from Republicans. Elections always come down to who votes and who doesn't. Both Obama and Trump succeeded largely because they motivated people who ordinarily don't vote to cast ballots.
Trump will get almost exactly the same number of votes he got in 2016. His popularity among his base won't waiver, regardless. If Democrats want to win, they have to figure out ways to increase the turnout of Democratic voters in battleground states they lost.
Apparently, they know this, and that's why they're floating out trial balloons on things like reparations, which may not be very popular overall but which might motivate 10,000 voters in Florida who would otherwise stay home. Meanwhile, everyone else has already made up their minds.
1
I was struck by this article's inclusion of extreme academic double-speak by a political scientist from the U. of Mississippi:
"Democrats contain much more heterogeneity across social groups than the more homogeneous white, Christian conservative Republican Party. To the extent the Democratic Party needs to entice and accommodate African-Americans, Latinos, environmentalists, etc. as voters, their candidates need to start embracing boutique policies for these groups that may not align with a general election “median voter” model of espousing moderate national policies."
To put it more succinctly: The Democratic Party is fragmented and, to win, Democratic candidates need to tell all the special interest groups what they want to hear.
1
There is a lot of description here of what radical can mean on the extremes. That distorts the appeal of all ideas by focus on the most troubled.
However, there is little real description of what is meant by "moderate." That is a serious distortion too. "Moderate" is often understood as a return to the old status quo, and voters were very upset about that idea too.
There is no one generic "moderate" nor any one generic "progressive." Discussion like this one tend more to shape in favor of one or the other rather than understand the appeal and weakness of parts of each.
3
Wrong question, Mr Edsall; and really, you should know the right will mis-frame the issue. It's what they do.
I'd ask why the gop wants us to keep paying more for health care than the rest of the world, and getting less than everybody else in the civilized world? We spend more, let kids and parents die and bankrupt families, when nobody else pays so much, and Americans suffer more.
Why does the gop want us to trail the world in health results, like we're some backwater primitive tribe? Everybody else in the world does better, Why does the gop require that middle and lower income Americans suffer?
We save 6% of GDP if we just bring our health care up to the world standard. Think we could fix our schools and roads, and address the Green New Deal with six percent of every dollar spent in our economy. Why does the gop stand in the way?
See? Frame it in positive terms, as a goal. Americans love a challenge.
A brief review of past centrist Democratic presidential nominees: Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore. I remember fondly how their centrism won their elections.
A playbook for continued centrist success: Continue to let Republicans frame the debate, make nods to identity politics meanwhile mostly doing things that help rich people and hurt people of color. Claim that doing anything otherwise is "extreme".
3
After the dust settles on whoever the Democrats choose, the party and candidate together will have to decide quickly and accurately which states are not worth even thinking about, e.g. Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, etc. Then launch a massive, monstrously funded get-out-the vote in the must wins, e.g., Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.
They will also have to go to war against a nuclear-armed and scorched-earth voter suppression effort in states where winning the state will win the election, e.g., Georgia, North Carolina and one or two intelligently-selected others. If they pull that together and stay focused, they will win because there are a half-dozen, perhaps a few more Democrats who could beat Trump.
Interestingly NONE of the various Dem proposals by so-called Leftists, are very "left." Indeed, all are just center or barely center-left. The only reason anyone could consider them "left" at all is that the Repubs are so now far to the fanatical ultra right wing of the political spectrum that they cannot even see the center anymore. Indeed, they are not even in the ballpark of rational discussion. Maybe on the freeway heading into the sunset of their delusions is more like it.
In the other 30+ countries that have proven themselves to be far more civilized than the US, these proposals would be considered barely acceptable for rational discussion - even by their "conservatives" - because they are so limited in their vision for helping all people. That is how out of touch the US is with modern life.
3
Couldn’t agree more. In Sweden, even Sanders would be considered moderate.
2
Anybody who thinks we have time for moderation should just look at the common scientific view of where we are going to be, climate wise, in 2040. Here's my definition of extremism: writing off the future of the planet - a future that has been showing itself - in fires out west, in floods in the midwest, in glacier melt, in the end of the arctic ice, in the threat that the methane buried under the tundra is going to be released - because it doesn't play well with polls among people who oppose gun control. Extremism or madness, take you pick. The "lets just float and see if we muddle through" attitude - common among the income set of NYT's op ed writers - is extremism. Not the left.
As far as I'm concerned, the Democratic Party may as well go full-stop left, until it's impossible to go any further left. For a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant conservatives like myself, there is seemingly no middle-ground. When the Democratic Left has veered so far to the extreme that an American like myself is considered persona non grata, it no longer even matters where the Dem's plant their flag----the issue now is existential, beyond politics-as-usual.
As for how extreme is 'extreme', the voters will certainly have a clear choice in 2020. I said 'clear choice', not necessarily 'happy.' There is no 'happy' left when the large chunk of middle-ground voters are left with a Hobson's choice.
And demographically, with Persons-of-Color, Millennials, women and immigrants now dominating former conservative strongholds like Florida and Texas and the electorate overall, Donald Trump may very well be the last Republican president America will see for generations.
How far left is too far for the Left? The question really is: How far left is too far left for the Right?
6
It’s not that complicated. The Democrats can win if they tone down the identity politics. There is broad consensus for climate change action. There is broad consensus for universal health care. There is not a consensus for the identity agenda; it’s a sure-fire loser that has the ability to drag the party down to certain defeat. Moderate it and win.
8
@MWR
With "slavery reparations", are some Democratic candidates looking like they are toning down identity politics? Can anyone imagine a middle class family of 4 with tight expenses voting to have tax dollars go to slavery reparations in 2020? This issue is political suicide for any candidate stressing it.
3
The Democrats can win if they motivate minorities to vote in large numbers, as Obama did twice. Democrats music overcome the antidemocratic Electoral College and the anti-Democratic vote-suppression laws and gerrymandering.
The fear of Democrats losing in 2020 is real. They will lose what is their's to win. The extreme Left Candidates can never hope to win even Moderate Republicans. For example, instead of Medicare for all, why can't we have a scaled Medicare for all i.e scaled to paychecks. It can cut down costs for those who can afford healthcare and provide healthcare for those who cannot - for the "same" level of healthcare. So the Leftists should consider that seriously without all or none phenomenon in every other issue too.
1
What's the old political saw - roads and pocket book issues get you elected? Democrats need to campaign on those. The "issues" that democrats could use -
make health care available and affordable - build good hospitals and urgent care centers in rural America and disadvantaged city communities, drive health care costs down by driving drug prices down, drive insurance administration costs down, subsidize education for doctors and nurses so there are enough available to see everyone;
build infrastructure and incentivize companies to spread good jobs more evenly across the country - airports and highways, repave roads that ruin the suspension on your car, subsidize new jobs in rural America,
Make a good education available to everyone - support new schools in disadvantaged rural and city areas, provide technical schools and training, subsidize higher education for people who can't pay bribes to get their children admitted to college,
Let everyone breath easier, fight water and air pollution,
And finally, make America democratic again by making every vote count. No more gerrymandering, no more voter suppression, make voting easier.
America, make your life better and make your vote count, vote Democratic.
4
I wonder. Will this really be about bold, new initiatives? Or will it be about removing Turmp? The former may make a nice positive message, but the later is one everybody can agree on.
2
I don't find it hard to understand why many Democrats are impatient with the incrementalist approach of people like Clinton and Obama. As Bernie Sanders accurately stated after the 2016 election, that message proved to be a colossal failure, leaving Democrats with less power at the federal and state levels than at any time in a generation. What I do find hard to understand is why people think the message that failed so spectacularly in 2016 would be a winner four years later.
Did Clinton win more votes in 2016 than Trump? Sure. But the GOP not only won a substantial majority of electoral votes, but ended up with many more governorships and state legislatures than the Democrats. You'd have to be more than a little crazy to call that a success.
5
Given the sharp turn to the right of the Republican party, going back to Reagan, it is difficult to watch the media continue to accept the "center" as nothing more than the exact ideological middle between two poles. The further rightward the Republican party goes, the more "extreme" even balanced, reasonable ideas on the left can seem to be. This is something that the media, not the voters, need to be adjusting for in their coverage.
Calling Warren an extremist is especially problematic for me. She is articulating the views that all candidates seem to espouse, but perhaps a bit more clearly, with more detail. I'm sure the media members are aware that when they use the word "extremist" which is often associated with things like terrorism, they are creating a view of a candidate--a view that will stick in reader's minds, and will color their impression of that candidate in the future. To my mind, this is at best, semantically irresponsible journalism and at worst, an attempt to narrow the ideological spectrum of the Democratic party, going forward.
2
@Jeremiah Crotser
Senator Warren is intelligent, well-versed on issues, and articulate. And yet I cannot get over the benefits she received from her "Indian" heritage in prestigious academic applications and positions. It just smacks of unfairness like the college payoff scandal.
1
It is alarming to me that candidates for office would run on giving free stuff to people. "Free" healthcare, college, a guaranteed wage, and reparations!
So who is it that gets the free stuff?
Not, the working people. Working people will work harder to pay the taxes that cover the costs of the free stuff.
The only people who will win out are those who do not work and do not pay taxes.
9
@Bruce
EXACTLY! Only 56% of the population pays federal income taxes. If you trudge to work each day, you are a sucker in this country. The best thing to do is to have a cash income and also collect "free" government benefits, as done by millions of people. Working in healthcare, I see this every single day with those with businesses that also are somehow on Medicaid.
3
I hope you will re-run this article the day after the next presidential election. It will explain why Donald Trump has been re-elected. Seizing defeat from the jaws of victory is what Democrats do best and that are now exceeding all expectations. The re-election of Trump will be disastrous for our country but the Democrats appear to be clueless on how to prevent it.
6
For me, the question of whether the Democratic Party has moved too far left was answered when I de-registered as a Democrat in 2013, in favor of becoming an Independent for the first time in my life.
I voted for Obama both times. I had been a Democrat since first registering to vote at 20 years of age, back in 1976 for that year's Carter-Ford contest. It wasn't Obama who caused me to leave the Democratic Party. Rather, seeing where where the Democratic Party was quickly heading, I saw it shifting more and more away from an emphasis on what I think is important in favor of the same "shiny-object" mentality that afflicts the Republican Party--a debasement of substance in favor of the "what-do-I-need-to-say-to-get-you-to-vote-for-me" approach.
Consistent with my formative years in the late 60s and 70s, I now see myself as a Civil Liberties progressive, and neither Democrats or Republicans serve my interests in that regard. As for everything else, I am no longer going to apply the principle of choosing to vote for the lesser of two evils.
7
One factor that is t really discussed here is the Republicans’ continuing refusal to cooperate. It’s been almost a decade since the GOP started their plan was to not let Obama get anything done. Democrats know working with Republicans will be impossible, so why compromise, why try to move to the middle to make a deal both parties will agree to. Republicans destroyed motivation for a centre and so the left goes the opposite way. If the Republicans want to curb the increasing liberalism of the left, they need to try to compromise and hope it isn’t too late (it almost certainly is however).
1
I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016 and never felt anything but contempt for the piece of work called Donald Trump.
With the leftist radicalism of the current crop of Democratic candidates, I will almost undoubtedly vote for Donald Trump in 2020 assuming that he is on the ballot.
8
Hillary Clinton, who was a moderate Democrat beat Bernie Sanders in the primaries. By beat him, she got more votes and it wasn't really that close. That's in a primary field that's left of the general voting population.
Hillary Clinton was smeared for years by the right and was smeared by the left during the primary season.
She was not defeated based on her centrist positions. She won by large majorities in both the Democratic primary and general election.
Her electoral defeat was similarly extremely small if you look at the States that went for Trump.
If the progressive wing of the Democratic Party wants to defeat Trump, they are the ones that have to compromise.
6
Abolish ICE! Reparations for slavery! Not merely a plan to employ more people in renewable energy (a great idea), but a “Green New Deal", a comprehensive overhaul of our entire socio-economic system!
Have professional Democrats thought through the implications of these fantasies, how these things would actually work, or are they just interested in sounding good to one another?
Russia did not give Trump the win. He won on an agenda of economic nationalism. Bernie almost won the Democratic nomination on an agenda of economic nationalism. Both require control of our borders, not the abolition of ICE.
Hillary lost – not because of Russians or the electoral college – but because the Democratic establishment was more interested in playing girl power anthems at her rallies, sounding good to one another, than talking about making the major reforms our middle class is desperate for.
It’s just incredible how incompetent the Democrats are. At this rate the only question is how badly the Democratic nominee will lose in 2020.
8
So here we go: democrats who seek to address the problems af a failing health care system that produces some of the worst outcomes in the advanced industrial world, or who seek to address income inequality, severe housing shortages, failing education with public policy positions that don't simply cede power to the markets and private corporations are "extreme" and cannot win. Best to "reach across the aisle." But to whom? A democrat who expects to win because he or she takes position right-wing republicans embrace is not an option for those of us who want to address these issues. If winning is just about the power of the centrist faction of the party then why would anyone who seeks to address the very conditions that gave rise to Trump bother to vote? It wasn't the Russians that enabled Trump, it was the democratic centrists. They lost, badly. Who's got next?
1
@LCJ
The worst examples of "income inequality, severe housing shortages, failing education " are all in cities and states which are completely controlled by Democrats who keep making things worse by doubling down on public policy positions. Why would anyone in their right mind vote for politicians who want to make the whole country as messed up as San Francisco?
1
The title of this article is critically important. The visible left is moving so far left that centrists and independents may not be able to go along.
6
From a daily cartoon, "Economy booming, unemployment low, salaries rising, we're at peace, and you want to change everything?"
11
There may be a parallel between the re-election of Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday and the possible outcome of the 2020 election here. Netanyahu was re-elected even though the Israeli
public knew he is vindictive, ruthless, probably racist and almost certainly corrupt. But he still won because the country remains safer than before and the economy is good. The voters were not comfortable with a new direction. If the progressive Medicare for All Democrats think that they can convince unaffiliated voters to trust them to make a massive new government program that will improve their lives they will probably be crying on January 20, 2021 when President Trump starts his second term. Democrats can win if they convince the moderate voters their candidate has quality character, understands science (climate change), praises Obamacare while improving access (public option for example), will not open the border and will allow the market economy do what it does best which is grow the economy (unlike in Europe). It may not be dramatic but with the right inspiring candidate (see Bill Clinton and Barack Obama) it wins elections.
11
@Forgotten Voter
7-8% rise in stock market in 2019 and 2020 and Trump wins. The pocket book always rules, and even Democrats have 401ks.
3
@Forgotten Voter I was thinking the same thing - comparing Israel's election to the upcoming US election. I have had friends who actually live in Israel, and from their accounts, I completely get why Bibi won. Ok, he's not a saint, but he LOVES his country and he wants to protect its citizens. Bravo, Bibi! I, for one, am very glad you won.
2
Unfortunately Democrats are now proposing to end Obamacare and all private insurance. They want to replace it with universal healthcare that someone else will pay for. But you can keep your doctor.
Much of this article has to do with labels, and changes over time. Conservative, Liberal, Republican, Democrat, Moderate, Extremist.
But I'm not sure how much water this argument holds. Why? Because the terms of definition for each of these has changed radically. 50 years ago there was a true and large moderate position and sect in both parties. The shared basis was an inclusive view of races and minorities, a desire for a cleaner environment, and lower support for military adventures overseas.
What used to be seen as these core moderate positions are now labeled as far left. Yet the numbers haven't moved all that much regarding public support for each. What has in fact happened is that one party (the other, R one) has purged its member rolls of voters who support these.
And yet - I'm the liberal white guy, for whom the Reparations movement represents the straw that could break the camel's back. 2 years ago, I couldn't imagine supporting a Republican for dog catcher. But bribery is the exact wrong answer to healing racial divisions.
7
The Democrat's field is already so far left, on average, that there is likely to be mass voting for Trump while nose-holding in 2020.
It's never too late to snatch defeat from what had looked like victory.
6
It never ceases to confound me that what are now called "bold progressive policy initiatives" in the corporate media would have been considered centrist, mainstream initiatives in the 1950's. I guess it shows how far to the right the right-wing has managed to shift Overton's Window over the years, through the constant drumbeat of propaganda and the outright legalized purchase and capture of our elected representatives, especially, of course, the Republicans. If you look at opinion polls regarding individual issues, however, it does not seem that the American public has, in fact, moved much to the right of the New Deal. Legislators, however, listen to their donors, not their constituents.
5
David Remnick discussed reparations with Pete Buttigieg during an interview published in in the New Yorker (April 2nd 2019). Buttigieg’s take was that reparations might be used in a cynical way during the campaign by suggesting reparations are like a check in the mail with no clear idea who gets the check and where it is supposed to come from.
Buttigieg suggests an approach that helps reverse the racial inequity created by deliberate policy choices by addressing the harm done by these policies. For example, directing resources to housing aid and funding to school districts.
It’ll be up to the Democrats to keep all their messaging clear and concise. Otherwise the Republicans will misrepresent every big issue on the table for the sole purpose winning the election using the divide and conquer technique they’re so good at.
5
In the last election while Trump falsely sold himself as what would ultimately be described as a "right wing populist", the democrats should have countered with a "left-wing populist", yet, in their "wisdom" the democratic party "annointed" a corporate establishment candidate who was second only to Trump in the category of worst approval ratings in recent Presidential election history and LOST!
What this group of so-called "pundits" fail to recognize in the column was that Rome wasn't built in a day as many of these progressives, less than two years ago, weren't even thinking about running for office, yet, based on the momentum Sanders was starting to build in the 2016 electoral primaries, they did run and many of them got elected.
Instead of the corporate/establishment worrying about progressives and (based on countless polls)their popular agenda, finally realize that clinging to the past with centrist/pragmatic democrats has alienated a significant portion of the electorate that felt the democratic party no longer represented their interests, hence, millenials, minorities and many stayed home in 2016 handing the Presidency to a demagogue.
If the establishment continues to keep up the same "line" and refuse to recognize what is happening in the country, they very well could hand the Presidency to Trump for another four years.
This is indeed the most important question for the Left today. How far Left is too far? We know with the Right that it's gone too far when it becomes xenophobic. We don't seem to know with the Left, which is strange given all the horrors of communism over the last century. In part we don't know because we aren't asking the question.
Dealing with climate change is important, and opens up opportunities. But the Green New Deal document promises jobs for everyone--communism.
Reparations sound reasonable in theory, but by the time they are enacted won't it be millenials paying the bulk of them? Is that fair for millenials, already burdened with all the other debts bequeathed by previous generations? The enactment of reparations sounds positively totalitarian.
If the Democrats push these issues in the general, they have no hope of winning. And they shouldn't.
8
Frankly, this discussion is offensive and besides the point. Why is it that expanding the bloated military budget is never ever polled in terms of cost relative to other domestic spending? To paraphrase the question - how far is too far TO DO THE RIGHT THING? In every case, addressing climate change, providing health care, etc., the goals are the right ones but the means are the focus. In the case of Trump and the Republican Party, both the goals and the means are objectionable. The choice is clear. Why is there even a discussion?
4
Democrats, whether moderate, liberal, or progressive, are united in terms of policy goals and objectives. Where we different is the fine print, aka how we achieve those goals and objectives. I think Democrats will be just fine no matter which wing of the party rises to the nomination. It is high time that we finally see the divisions in the Democrats capable of putting forward their own doctrine. We have always known Republicans are a hodgepodge of three parties; economic conservatives, religious conservatives, and interventionalist. They overlap in nearly the same fashion as modern Democrats do and they have done well. I am sure Democrats can do the same.
1
Radical?
#1- Health care for all-we can afford it
#2- Better safer infrastructure
#3- Reasonable education costs
#4- Living wage for workers.
#5- Reasonable tax schedule that allows all groups to pay their fair share .
#5- Change voting to make it easier and more available. Stop voter suppression
#6-Assure SS is protected and increased for a reasonable retirement
#6-Assure all members of our society have equal rights
#7-Get rid of the electoral college
#8- Stop SC picks being made by politicians.
#9- Congress has to approve any new "wars" we want to start.
If these are radical then I am a radical
6
@RichardHead "#1- Health care for all-we can afford it"
No we cant. Such a plan would decimate the middle class. When you have 1/2 the country paying for the whole country's healthcare it is game over in the U.S. And with the Democrats pushing to import more poverty into the U.S. healthcare costs will only skyrocket.
11
@RichardHead First, so far, the only Dem who has mentioned anything remotely helpful to seniors has been Warren, and I don't think it was a significant benefit increase. Beside, if #6 is enacted, where do you think they will find that 15 trillion in reparations money? SS - same well they always run to, while bashing the GOP for being against SS.
1
@RichardHead
#1-#9 are easy to pay for from an address in Mill Valley, CA. A major reason to keep the Electoral College is that most of the country does not want CA politics and 12% state income taxes. Only 56% of people pay federal income tax, so by "fair share" do you mean all people should finally contribute at least something to the federal spending budget? Or is everything just free to everyone aside from those who go to work at 4:30 a.m. to provide for their families and pay taxes as responsible citizens?
4
"...bets on moderation have few takers."
"Moderation" in this context means "mediocrity"--not perfection--as in the perfect amount/degree of whatever--neither too much nor too little--including government services.
Look at countries with single payer health care (aka Medicare for all, Socialized medicine--a staple of most civilized countries for decades)--it seems pretty moderate. None are bankrupt.
3
@Michael Kubara Most of these countries have private supplementary health insurance. And they have been able to afford their programs because, so far, the US has covered their defense programs.
5
I'm a lifelong Democrat, who's never even seriously thought about voting for a Republican. But even I would have real trouble voting for a candidate who supports reparations. They're deeply divisive and unpopular, not to mention simply unfair. So if a person like me is feeling this way, what chance does a Democratic candidate who supports reparations have of winning the general election?
And the way I feel about lax enforcement of immigration laws and affirmative action is similar to the way I feel about reparations, only somewhat less intense.
So please, Democrats, pull out of this death spiral before it's too late! Go with healthcare, environmentalism, and income inequality. These are winners.
8
Nothing is too far left for a Democrat candidate. The voters will choose the best person to represent the party platforms. Why stifle original ideas?
2
Logically, Democrats have to win, and it's certain that compromises will be made that will anger some of the most liberal voters and politicians. If the party sends one message to them it must be that the future they hope for will NEVER happen unless they recognize that they can't get their way on everything right now. Call it incrementalism if you like, but that's just reality. Nothing less than the future of our democracy and our planet depend on this. Democrats who want purity will end up electing Trump for four more years, and allowing the Senate to remain in Republican hands. This is by far a much bigger disaster than making pragmatic compromises in order to win. So please, Democrats, unwrap the circular firing squad and aim at Trump.
2
The Democratic party has learnt precisely the wrong lesson from Trump; the base is all, you can win the white house with them alone.
More than anything if Democrats want to actually make meaningful progress their prospective leaders need to be asked "How is your platform going to strengthen the fragile house majority? How will it win the Senate?"
Or put more simplistically - primary voters -please- be mindful of what a candidate can actually* do given the likely composition of congress. Actions not words will matter post election.
* - "I will lead a revolutionary wave to my radical agenda doesn't cut it unless you have independent moderate voters raving about you."
1
But then it is about WINNING — at all costs.
Healing America’s dangerously debilitating diametric partisan political division and ever more polarized radical political dogma afflicts both major political parties to the ultimate peril of the American people writ large.
Hard not to regrettably and with certainty expect that the Trump model will dominate to continue to disable the causes of moderation, civility, compromise and a credible, rational dialogue about a truly shared American future.
How far left is the right amount?
About just as the far right is the wrong amount.
2
There are many reasons why Hillary lost. Chief among them are the bothsiderism of the main stream media. They just had to make a mountain out of the email mole hill. And then there's Comey and his last second torpedo publicly reopening the email investigation. Add in all the fake news propagated on Facebook and other internet social media, some of which was produced by Russian operatives.
This article points out another factor...the far left and the nihilists who wanted big change at any cost. So, you have the berniebros who weren't going to vote for Hillary no matter what. Some went for Trump and some when for 3rd party candidates. Bernie would have held on to those voters. On the other hand, Bernie would not have held on to the minority vote as well as Hillary. And Trump would have gone after Bernie as a socialist big time.
The problem in 2016 was that liberal voters were not as enthusiastic as conservative voters after 8 years of Obama. That won't be the case in 2020. A moderate can win in 2020. We don't need a firebrand that turns off the independents. We do need a moderate without much baggage. That's a winner...and after 4 years of Trump, WE NEED THIS.
2
@rumples
There was also the "deplorable" issue. Most Americans just don't like being told how to live, speak, act, etc. Clinton et. al. seemed to think the political correctness mantra permeated all corners of America. Thankfully, even in 2019, there are independently minded Americans not enamored with the drivel of identity or victimhood politics. Independent voters will not vote for any far-left Democratic candidate with a decent economy and unemployment < 4%.
4
@rumpleSS Clinton was a horrid bought and paid for candidate.
2
Hillary’s emails - anybody who works a big company job can tell you that using email outside the company system is a recipe for getting fired immediately. That’s how frauds are perpetrated. In regulated industries it’s going to get you a colonoscopy as the regulators (banking, insurance, etc.) investigate why you were doing business while circumventing official channels.
There has never been a good explanation forthcoming for why the State Dept was running its own email system, out of her basement. I won’t bother holding my breath - by now it’s clear that there was never a good excuse. We will never find out what she was doing on the sly. But I’m still glad that she lost. Yes, even in light of who went on to win.
2
Whenever a left-leaning agenda - or what most other industrialized nations call normal policy that is in the interests of its citizens - is suggested by the progressive branch of the democratic party, there are two criticisms: the first is that it will smack of "socialism" which will alienate the supposed middle and result in defeat; the second is that it will simply be cost prohibitive. So the Democrats keep putting forth the same old centrist policies which, ultimately, with the right becoming further and further extreme, themselves move further and further to the right. And, of course, they keep losing, or electing an ineffectual group who falter in the face of an obstructionist GOP so compromised in their agenda that at best they offer "treading water" as their solution.
Most citizens support bold action on climate change, support reform of tax codes, support single payer, oppose the draconian immigration policies of Trump and what have become his brown shirts, oppose our policy of endless war and occupation. So, when confronted with "cost," it seems the money source is pretty self-evident: reform of tax codes, defunding of our bloated military-industrial complex, seriously reduce ICE ( and other department from the Department of Fear Mongering). How far left is too far left for the Democratic establishment? If past is prologue, it will be just not far left enough to affect any real change.
2
@tomg "Most citizens support bold action on climate change, support reform of tax codes, support single payer, oppose the draconian immigration policies of Trump"
Facts please? Says who? I strongly doubt this.
5
@MM
A little dated, but it is late where I am;
Single payer: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/most-americans-now-support-medicare-for-all-and-free-college-tuition.html
the recent tax "reform" that benefitted the wealthy https://news.gallup.com/poll/243611/disapprove-approve-2017-tax-cuts.aspx
Admittedly, climate change is dicier - most polls suggest that people want strong measures; however in 2018, most measures were defeated, largely as a result of cost consideration.
Immigration - again, this poll suggests strong disagreement with current policy of family separation and while immigration is complex and multifaceted, Trump's general policies are meeting with resistance: https://www.lawfareblog.com/new-poll-despite-partisan-divides-immigration-americans-oppose-family-separation
This last is quite recent. I hope you are fact checking everyone. And again, some are dated , but they suggest a general trend.
I'm a pragmatic progressive. I will accept incrementalism except on 1, no, 2 issues.
Fair elections. Big money out, unbiased voter districting...maybe an alternative to the electoral college system.
Make the uber rich pay high taxes on the wealth they've built on the backs of underpaid workers and the Wall Street casino.
Likewise with corporations.
10
Candidates need to be able to articulate vision that transcends ideology. They also need to be able to articulate the fallacies of left/right ideology in showing that progressive policies are simply common sense routes to enabling citizens to thrive with sustainable income. When candidates/parties/ voters get stuck in a dominance mode of supporting a particular ideology, the whole idea of change becomes a distorted, easilt exploitated concept. Therefore a recognition of an anxieties regarding change must be built into both the dialogue and the remedy.
2
Trump took advantage of the dramatic shift of the Republican Party to the right. Evidence of this shift is the Tea Party and Freedom Caucus. There is also a right wing media ecosystem that churns out propaganda and lies and no such comparable media ecosystem on the left. Therefore, I would not use would Trump did as an analogy for the Democrats. The loudest voice in the Democratic Party are on the left but it isn't clear to me that party has shifted much to the left at all. In the last primary Hillary Clinton defeated Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton actually ran on the most liberal platform any candidate has run on and it included tree college tuition for families making under $250,000. Her climate plan was rather similar to Sanders' climate plan. The election in 2018 resulted in more new moderate members of the House than progressive new members. And a poll found that more Democrats want to shift toward the center than to the left. While there are very loud voices pushing the Democratic Party left it does not appear that there has been much movement when everything is considered. A big danger this country now faces if Republican extremism that is wrecking democracy and preventing adequate action against climate change. I think many voters are looking to the Democrats to counter this extremism by remaining fairly moderate and bringing the country back to the norms that have served so well in the past in helping to keep lack of civility and hate in check.
2
Building progressive power and progressive policy solutions is a moral imperative even if we lose.
1
If Democrats continue to favor policies for people who either cannot vote (immigrants) or have, for good reasons, historically low voting participation, they will loose the 2020 election. This has nothing to do with left or right. You can be very left wing, but still against, for example, uncontrolled immigration, because it destabilizes working conditions and transfer payments for wide swaths of the working class citizenry. If Democrats want to win the election, they need to focus on the needs of people who can and will vote. That’s the game in elections.
8
This discussion seems to describe all Democratic candidates as far to the left in their policy proposals. That is decidedly not the case. There is a major difference in the prescriptions of Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar or John Hickenlooper, just to mention two examples.
There are 18 declared Democratic candidates (at last count) and just as many policy ideas. These will shake themselves out in the ongoing primary process. It seems to me that the one Democrat everyone should pay close attention to is Nancy Pelosi. She has top-notch political skills, and her influence will help insure that the Party and its candidates not get too far — or way too far — out in front of practical reality.
3
Although Edsall has given us a little to ponder, it’s only a little. Of course, proposals for huge extreme changes will mobilize extreme people and they will turn out in primaries. But what about simple common sense proposals that get labeled “extreme” (or “socialist”) by the brainwashing machinery of billionaire bigots? This apparatus wants to turn off moderates by making every solution to every problem look radical.
What can be done to counter this enormously successful propaganda that pervades the media and the web and “social” media and defines an alternative reality for 45% of voters??
5
Herding 5 cats is really difficult, but herding 20 cats is a Sisyphean task.
-reparations
-eliminate ICE
-forgive 1.5 trillion in student loans
-32 trillion healthcare plan
-hatred of white male Christianity
Methinks that sells not too well in flyover country.
8
If Democrats act like they're scared of their own shadow, that wouldn't win them any voters respect or support, they should learn some lessons from GOP who with their aggressive, blatant lies swayed the big parts of the country...not suggesting that they should lie, no, but be authentic, bold and fearless.
It will win the day if they can manifest their strong conviction and focus on people issues.
One more thing, watching Barr testifying in front of the Senate, I think his plate reads honorable AG...lets be clear there's not one honorable person in this administration, bunch of crooks all the way to the bottom of the swamp.
6
I'd reframe the question. How reactionary and ignorant is a large proportion of the American population? I have read that 60% of Americans do not even believe in the theory of evolution? Is this possible? Is it the result of 40 years of corporatism hollowing out not only the country's institutions but also its brains as well?
The sad truth is that those on the right are the real radicals. The whole world stands aghast.
5
What does it all really matter?! We'll all soon be dead right? I think that pretty much sums up the way Republicans "govern". Tomorrow does not matter. Only today...
3
How far right is too far for Republicans? Obviously, there is no limit! Medicare for all is a far more popular policy than reparations and should not be lumped into an article about radical platform issues.
5
The only thing Democrats agree on is their hatred of Trump. In every other way it's a fractured party of colliding interests. A strong economy wins elections - not greeniness, health care or social justice. But, whatever.
2
All those political hacks in the pool trying to out maneuver each other- only to engage in an epic battle with Trump.
Find a safe space and hold on to your emotional service dog- this is going to be a wild ride.
3
Calling Hilary Clinton “incrementalist”is absurd. She had no agenda other than don’t rock the boat; I want to be the first female president. If she had espoused any moderately progressive ideas, the country would not be in its current awful state.
@Peter E Derry: You obviously did not bother to read the still relevant 2016 Platform.
1
The pundits keep getting it wrong, but that doesn't stop them. They told us Pelosi was an albatross who would alienate voters and bring down the Democrats. They told us Hillary was exactly the right candidate because she was a moderate. They told us to back off the quest for gay rights because it would alienate voters. Their timidity is simply wrong headed.
1
I really don’t think it’s a matter of “how far left”? I think many level thinking Democrats see Trump as the “anti-normal”. The perception is that those who wanted to buck the status-quo ended up with the freak show that is our current President and White House. Thus, the Democrats best gambit is to respond with maturity, sobriety, and normalcy to present the counter point. However, a potential, “devil you don’t know” message could be exploited by Trump if Democrats go with someone more radical, with the cries of “socialism!” echoing throughout the Fox lineup. I don’t know if this more cautious approach from Democrats is the right one, but I understand where it’s coming from.
"Leading Democratic candidates are supporting bold progressive policy initiatives that are supported by liberal primary voters but may prove to be a tough sell to the general electorate."
And --
"To the extent the Democratic Party needs to entice and accommodate African-Americans, Latinos, environmentalists, etc. as voters, their candidates need to start embracing boutique policies for these groups that may not align with a general election “median voter” model..."
In other words -
The Democratic Party is fractured collection of diverse voters - each with their own self-interested "feel-good" agendas -- rather than an overarching collective view of a "Great Society" - moving forward for the benefit of the large majority - while understanding that compromise is essential --
But no --
The idea of an "overarching collective view" smells too much like moderation - apparently a dirty word in the current "push for my agenda" climate of so-called "progressive" politics --
5
In the short-run, perhaps. But over the next decade or so the strengthening White Supremacist (WS) core of the Republican party will be confronted by a growing melange of more militant anti-supremacist forces. The political middle cannot survive because the middle will fracture along this same axis: White Supermacists and everyone else. To remain a White moderate will mean being ready to become more explicitly White Supremacist. To oppose WS will mean joining coalitions of Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, anti-WS Christians, more and more women, who together will cohere around Medicare for All, free education, Social Security Medicaid, improved family incomes via some kind of Green New Deal. If you're a moderate now, you will be forced to declare one way or the other: White Supremacist or
(Liberal) Democrat. Finance and Oligarchy will tend toward the WS side for obvious reasons: when in doubt a nominally "liberal" financier or oligarch will bet on the Right to protect his power and property. Radical Dems will need a new core of "responsible" leaders who can keep the fractious coalition of Blacks, Social Democrats, other identify groups, progressives, Labor, left-wing economists, scientists, etc, together. (Imagine a new leadership that is really racially diverse, gender sensitive, worker-oriented, smart, religious tolerant, internationalist oriented.) The big unknown will be how the military responds to this fracture.
1
Universal access to basic healthcare becomes "radical" only after right-wing demagogues redefine political boundaries. Protecting the environment on which all our lives and wealth depend becomes "radical" only after short-term despoilment for profit is accepted as normal. Atoning for the original sin of slavery on which the very wealth of our nation is built becomes "radical" only after we've convinced ourselves that blacks are born with equal opportunity in our society. WAKE UP!
6
@Michael "Universal access to basic healthcare becomes "radical" only after right-wing demagogues redefine political boundaries. "
Wrong....you do realize the public government unions (police, teachers and firemen) all support Democratic candidates and they do not want to give up their solid gold health plans for single payer. Get me now?
Are there any liberal commenters here that are not far left crazy?
1
@Michael Please consult a history book; slavery ended in 1865, and no one alive today was born into it. And Affirmative Action, which advantages blacks, has been around for 50 years.
1
@MM Some people who have solid gold health plans, don't see the costs, and don't feel any solidarity with the uninsured ... don't want change. Agreed. What is your point?
All over the world, societies much poorer than ours have figured out better solutions. People here expect no less.
1
The premise of this article is ridiculous. It is truly a shame that American political debate has sunk so low. The so called radical policies of universal health care and fighting climate change are supported by every other right wing party in western countries. They are radical only if you allow the extremist GOP to define the parameters of the debate. The Republicans elected Trump as president and that alone should disqualify them from even participating in the debate.
6
Your right Edsall, addressing problems is too radical. We should just stick to the status quo created by, and for, the 1% and be satisfied with waiting for them to brush some crumbs off their table for rest of us. What's the Borg saying - "Resistance is futile".
1
The problem with the studies Mr. Edsall relies on is the notion that political positions fall on a neatly linear spectrum from very liberal to very conservative.
Millions of working class whites support higher wages, including a higher minimum wage and an end to the off-shoring of decently paying jobs, higher taxes on the rich, and accountability for bankers and CEOs, but take a dim view of welfare, exclusively race-based affirmative action, criticism of the police, and the contemporary view of what constitutes sexual harassment. So are they liberal or conservative?
Millions of university educated professionals support race-based affirmative action, accountability for the police, gay parenting, and gender-neutral bathrooms, but are circumspect about any significant increase in wages or taxes and support the globalization of labor markets - as long as their labor markets remain domestic. So are they liberal or conservative?
The issues Bernie raised and that he and now many others are running on resonate with millions of people the studies might categorize as conservative.
9
Preamble to the gospel of Edsall: In the current election cycle, bets on moderation have few takers. Leading Democratic candidates are supporting bold progressive policy initiatives that are supported by liberal primary voters but may prove to be a tough sell to the general electorate.
3
We live in a center right country (partly so due to the electoral college and the way in which Senate seats are apportioned). Those who would disagree should simply look at the results of the blue wave 2018 midterms where the Republicans ousted an incumbent Democratic senator and won the open governorship in Florida, as well as the governorships of Georgia and Ohio. Not to mention gaining seats in the Senate. Democrats did very well in northern and western swing congressional districts with moderate candidates, many of whom had military backgrounds. This is simply the reality on the ground. In the last 30 years, two Democratic presidents tried to go bold on healthcare. President Clinton tried healthcare for all, could not succeed and lost control of the House for the first time in 40 years. It took Democrats 12 years to regain that chamber. President Obama managed to pass the ACA only to lose the House. The lesson is that progressive voters seem to demand big changes and then abandon the party in the midterms. As a result, Democrats have no choice but to put forth moderate candidates who can make incremental change. Republicans face no such constraints. The party gallops further to the right with no consequence and no loss of its dedicated voters. Some have asked the question, how far right can Republicans go before they lose their voters. We still don't know the answer as they continue to drift further rightward.
6
@Maya EV I live in FL. I voted for DeSantis because he supports law enforcement, while his opponent, Gillum, is against both law enforcement AND stand your ground laws. In other words, Gillum wants to put my personal safety and my neighborhood's value at extreme risk. If that makes me "right wing", that's fine with me.
2
@me
Please do not project that my post accuses you of being right wing. In fact, your post makes my very point that voters who perceive the Democratic candidate as too liberal will vote Republican. My point is that candidates perceived as more moderate may have won governorships in FL, GA, etc.
3
Democrats have an historic opportunity next year, but I am seeing serious signs of danger. Most Americans are not hard left. Polls have consistently shown, conceding some geographic exceptions, that America is culturally and politically quite centrist, maybe leaning slightly to the right.
With the ongoing chaos at the southern border playing out to Trump's advantage, Democrats need to tread carefully. If Republicans are able to successfully paint the Democratic nominee as extremist, they will lose.
I dislike making predictions (like almost everyone I was dead wrong about 2016), but here goes. If Democrats embrace abolition of ICE, and broad amnesty/sanctuary policies, unrestricted abortion on demand up to the moment of birth, and support for policies that are guaranteed to alienate white voters, Donald Trump will be reelected in an electoral college landslide. I can see him carrying 38-42 states if Democrats are perceived by white voters as flipping them the bird.
I am seriously worried that too many progressives are living in their own bubble and do not grasp how unpopular some of these proposals are in mainstream America. And I also worry that their own visceral hatred for Trump is blinding them to the fact that his poll numbers have been slowly creeping up. Simply assuming "we are right and therefor will win" is incredibly naive.
13
According to one of the authorities Edsall consulted, "Hall found that when a more extreme candidate beats a moderate in the primary, 'the party’s general-election vote share decreases on average by approximately 9—13 percentage points, and the probability that the party wins the seat decreases by 35—54 percentage points.'" Yet Trump -- certainly one of the more extreme candidates in 2016 -- prevailed. Why does this conventional wisdom of moderates preferred over extremists apply only to Democrats? Why do Democrats seem to move to the middle, while Republicans, and perhaps the country as a whole, continued its march to ever more extreme, radical, right-wing policies?
On Medicare-for-All, I still don't see why Americans blanche at a $30 trillion cost over 10 years. Healthcare consumes 18% of our GDP, which is now $21 trillion annually. That's $37.8 trillion over the same period. Even with Nancy Pelosi's estimate, we would save $780 billion each year. Are we that math challenged? Or are those opposed good at emphasizing the additional costs borne by the government, while they ignore the fact that they would be offset by what we already pay a variety of public and private entities?
4
@Ockham9
It isn't a blanch at cost so much as "Whose pockets is it coming out of ?" Because anyone with employer based insurance knows quit well that if Medicare for all goes that: One) Their employer will STOP paying anything towards their insurance. Two) They are NOT under any circumstances going to get raise of what their employers used to pay towards their insurance their employers will pocket that money. They won't see a thin dime of it. Three) Taxes will have go up substantially to pay for it And increasing taxes on the rich to pay for it? Isn't going to enough. So a big chunk of people are looking at a tax increase while their wages stay steady of decline. Thus the controversy. It would change who pays and how much. And from experience our dying middle class knows who is going to get .......done over and isn't the rich.
1
@Stephan. Currently, businesses that provide health insurance to their employees receive a tax deduction for doing so. Thus, the IRS already knows how much the employer is paying to insurers, and there is no reason why a federal bill cannot claw back that money as a compulsory payment into the system. As far as salaries are concerned, Americans allowed unions and collective bargaining to languish, so if we want fairer compensation, we need to demand a stronger presence at the bargaining table. And as far as increased taxes are concerned, check out the provisions of HR 676 [https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/676], where the increases include (1) increasing personal income taxes on the top 5% of income earners, (2) instituting a progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income, (3) instituting a tax on unearned income, and (4) instituting a tax on stock and bond transactions. Those are not middle-class obligations.
@Ockham9
except that anyone paying attention knows that for all the talk of clawing back that money it aint gonna happen. That's more fantasy then the Arabian Nights. The Corporations will have a seat at that table with the people whose campaigns they paid for. Who do you think is going to get their way? As for Unions ? LOL Unions are a joke in the wonderful era of Free trade and Globalization. And that's not going to change either. Once upon a time I was a Union negotiator. The company we were negotiating said tak the pay cut or we ship the Jobs to Mexico. We didn't they did. In an age of Global Labor arbitration Unions are about useful and as relevant in the developed world has the Flat Earth society. maybe even less relevant. Unions no longer have any leverage at the bargaining table ask the UMWA or the Steel Workers if you don't believe me.
Has for tax increases you point to it WILL NOT be enough to pay for it. No way no how. And since the rich and corporations will have a seatat the table when things are decided and working and middle class will have NO SEAT. In whose interest do you think the bill will slant? Forty + years of history kinda indicates who the winners are going to be. And it aint people who work for a wage.
The number one goal of the Democratic party should be to replace Trump with a Democrat. The Republicans are afraid to vote him out fearing they would lose support from those 62 million Trump supporters they need to keep themselves in office.
Once Trump is replaced with a Democrat in 2020 discussions can begin on just what direction and how far they want to take the country.
The Dems seem too giddy right now - perhaps forgetting how wrong the Trump can't win consensus was in 2016. There's a hundred things he's said or done since being elected - each one bad enough to boot any other POTUS out of office - yet, he prevails. We shouldn't be surprised if he wins again in 2020 and then President Don Junior in 2024. Absurd yes - but talk to those 62 million.
Get smart Dems.
3
Obama's centrism is a direct cause of the election of Trump. Obama did nothing he promised, was able to sell the "just wait 'til after 2012 then watch me" to get re-elected and then proceeded to be the third and fourth terms of the GW Bush Administration.
In the event the Acela Villagers actually talk to those outside the bubble rather than treating them as an ethnographic anomaly, they'd learn that people are desperate. Trump was not a surprise beneficiary of this desperation to those out here in the provinces paying attention.
4
The general electorate knows that it would be impossible to eliminate ICE (which is tantamount to having an open border) and also provide Medicare for All, maternity leave, free or low cost childcare, and free public college tuition.
8
Ok. I suppose that one of today's Democrats could go too far left. But so far they haven't, they are simply moving back to what they were before Reagan/Clinton, particularly on economics. I beg of you pundits and analysts, stop thinking that Dems are ever going to turn a Republican. Jesus could run with a "D" next to his name and they wouldn't vote for him. And the mythical moderate? They tend to already be aligned or else don't pay close attention anyway.
5
@LFK Nope. No one was openly talking "reparations" before 1980.
1
There is nothing radical about everyone earning a living wage. There is nothing radical with providing every American with equal access to health care. There is nothing radical about providing an good education to everyone. There is nothing radical about the fair and equal treatment of women. There is nothing radical about affordable housing. Stop already.
10
*to you.
But this isn’t about you or people who think like you. It’s about the people who have not been convinced by your arguments. Those are the people who decide elections.
@Mssr. Pleure
I think that this is changing. Everyone said that no one thought like trump either.
1
Like many liberals, I'm a longtime NPR listener. But over the past few years, it seems that NPR has been laser-focused on the issue of race, to the point that I can barely turn on the radio without hearing about reparations or "marginalized people" or how there isn't enough Latinx representation in the world of romance novels.
These topics are worthy, of course, but I've started to become deaf to their constant drum beat, and frankly resentful of the underlying suggestion that I should feel guilty as a white person.
In my opinion, the progressive wing of the Democratic party has gone the way of NPR, where race has become a literal obsession. It's now just a means to virtue-signal, wherein the goal is to make white people uncomfortable so they will participate in these "difficult conversations."
But alas, making people uncomfortable is not a good strategy for winning their votes. So I REALLY hope the Dems wake up from their "wokeness" and ditch the talk of reparations. Policies that lift ALL boats will be much better received.
37
@shstl
I don’t think reparations means you should feel guilty as a white person. Reparations should be paid by the government to the descendants of slaves, not from whites to blacks.
Here’s an analogy. Let’s say you inherit a some shares of stock in a tobacco company. The tobacco company is sued for false advertising in the 50s and must pay damages to the descendants of the smokers. You had nothing to do with the company in the 50s and may not even have been alive then. Obviously, it would be completely irrational to feel guilty. But the company should still be on the hook for damages. Paying those damages will ultimately mean fewer dividends for you, but that is just part of the obligations of being a shareholder.
We all inherited American citizenship. I think this comes with an obligation to make right on the bad things our country has gone in the past, but we do not need to feel personally guilty or attacked.
2
@Aoy "We all inherited American citizenship. I think this comes with an obligation to make right on the bad things our country has gone in the past..."
I utterly and forcefully reject this idea.
13
@Centrist
Why? If a corporation did something bad a hundred years ago, our legal system makes it pay even though the shareholders who are ultimately paying for it today are totally different from the shareholders who were responsible for the problem. There are corporations paying for mass torts like pollution, asbestos, and tobacco from the early 1900s. It’s not a defense for the current shareholders to say they weren’t even alive when the wrongdoing happened. Why should a government be any different?
2
If you begin by characterizing the Democratic Party's mild reform proposals as extreme, it is true that most Americans will respond that they oppose extremism. It all depends on how you frame the question. For example: Why is that both New York City and the state of California could offer free college education in excellent CUNY and UC schools in the 1960s, when the economy was much smaller, but now to return to that policy would be "extremist " and bankrupt the country? The trick to such an approach is to get people to identify with their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation--that is, anything but the one category that really matters, and is at the root of all these other oppressions, their economic class. This is what Socialism will change.
5
@Red Allover This year 111,000+ people applied to UCLA only. In 60s less then this number of people applied to ALL UCs. Do you understand that the costs of accommodating more students are not linear in their number? Like you need to build new dorms, classrooms, hire new faculty, and other things.
3
@Red Allover - Because college cost a student a fraction of what it does now back then, after adjusting for inflation. and as DL mentions far more people attend school now than they did back then. The cost to the government would be dramatically higher now. total apples and oranges comparison.
Also - socialism with respect to admissions policies did wonders (not) for CCNY.
1
People are inherently conservative, meaning they want stability. That’s why progress has been so slow throughout history. Don’t be fooled by the use of handy gadgets. That’s just a desire to lessen work. Society is just as it was when we were hunter-gatherers. How else can you explain the class system?
Fascism or Socialism, living standards are going down either way: globalization, automation, and immigration are pushing further down working class wages, as other countries become more competitive on cheaper labor. Aging demographics and millennial attrition are speeding up the process.
I am so tired of truly sensible policies being portrayed as radical and leftist. How is universal health care an extreme position for the 21st century? How can the protection of the planet, so we can all live here, be portrayed as a fringe movement? Vision is not a dirty word.
5
Yes the Democratic establishment is probably going to be removed. Pelosi and Schumer are totally to committed to big money contributors. They have made idiots over themselves trying to sell Israel as a dynamic democracy. Fighting climate change was a big issue with Obama this is now being attacked as too expensive and intrusive on the hydrocarbon live style. The only issue Clinton was more liberal than Obama was immigration in which Obama was aware what a explosive emotional subject it was. Clinton didn't get the Hispanic voter bump she expected from it and got the nasty retribution of the right wing hate mongers on the social media. Clinton was far less interested in the minimum wage or the nuclear deal with Iran. Citizens United changed the lay of the land. The Democratic establishment seems more interested in super rich contributors than the grass roots.
1
If the goal is to divide Americans even more than they are now, then reparations is a great idea. The idea of taking resources from several ethnic groups to give to one would lead to animosity among groups. It is a horrible idea from many perspectives.
11
Trump Republicanism is Fascism. White Nationalism. Hatred for immigrants and people of color. Hatred of Science and Education. Total disdain for clear air and clean water, a stable climate and the beauty of nature. When people ask how far left is too left, the answer is, relative to Trump's America, the left is what used to be called the moderate center of American political thinking.
6
It’s too late to worry about the radicalizing of the DNC...that horse was out of the barn years ago.
As they all kissed the corrupt ring of Mr. Sharpton that sealed their fates.
9
When is the media going to ask how far right can the republicans go?? Trump has all of the characteristics of a fascist. Why doesn't the media ever talk about that???
7
@Rick Ivnik
That's all the media does talk about.
3
@Wine Country Dude
Because sadly, it's true. And sooner or later Americans are going to wake up to the fact that our Democracy is being disassembled by this administration.
1
Whatever it takes to lose!
Circular firing squad, indeed.
4
Radical Democrats in 2020 as compared to who, when and where?
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were both well to the partisan political right of FDR and LBJ as expected, but Ike and Nixon as well.
Clinton and Obama were an echo. Not a choice. Their liberal progressive rhetoric was euphemistic cover for their real conservative policies and practices.
Bill and Hillary Clinton were the master and mistress of black mass incarceration and black welfare deformation.
Barack Obama was a politician who relentlessly tallked down to black people. Denying and dismissing black socioeconomic political educational health misery by claiming that he was President of all of the people and that they needed to stop whining and being so ignorant, immoral and lazy.
Now Obama is off collecting and counting his coins " earned" from his public " service". Black people need help because of their humanity. Not because of their color aka race .
While the San Francisco Mummies Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi belong in a natural history museum exhibit.
Bring on more of the likes of Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez and Lauren Underwood.
1
Okay, I don't know if Edsall picks his own headlines but this is ridiculous. There is no one "radical" running for the Democratic nomination. Why does the press - including the NY Times - come up with this garbage, while never, not once, running headlines about whether the Republicans are going "too far" with their support of white nationalists? By, mind you, the leader of the party.
2
Heres's a novel idea: how about a return to sanity, common sense, wisdom, and - gasp - thinking. Buttigieg/Harris, or Harris/Buttigieg for eight years then Buttigieg for eight more. Democrats blew it when they elected Obama over Hillary in '08. Should have been Clinton for eight, then Obama for eight. Don't blow it again, Democrats.
3
Let’s be honest, any one not supporting the lying hypocrite racist Trump is going to be too radical.
3
George McGovern, war hero and radical leftist, would be run out of today’s hate-filled Democrat Party on a rail. Ditto for war hero and centrist John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
The Democrats have become the party of grievance groups, self-hating Americans like Howard Zinn, and radical intersectionality types.
Good luck winning a national election with that makeup. You’ll just run up the score yet again in the coastal urban areas and lose — thankfully — in the Electoral College.
10
Is a marginal tax rate of 70% radical? It was over 90% for all of Eisenhower's eight years as president.
Is breaking up the big banks, big pharma, big oil radical? Monopolies were illegal in the USA until Reagan. Now billion-dollar companies buy up billion-dollar companies every day.
Is essentially free public university education radical? Many of us went to top universities in the 60s for almost nothing. Four years, zero debt.
Oligarchs didn't exist, except in small oil kingdoms. Now, we have to watch our American oligarchs flaunt their tens and hundreds of billions in personal wealth in public.
The 50s was the decade when Americans were heroes all over the world. Some hated us, but also admired us. Everybody knew you would live better lives than your parents and grandparents, and it was the decade that prepared us to send a man to the Moon and return him to Earth.
Science was respected and fostered, and schools were strong. Politics stopped at the waters edge. We were once a nation.
3
@John
The 50s are, and have been for decades, reviled by the left. It's an outstanding example why I distrust the cultural left.
2
@Wine Country Dude
As a classic liberal, I liked the 50s. There were problems (Jim Crow laws, all-white college football teams, divorced women were in bad shape) but we were Americans.
The right-wing fascists starting with the John Birch Society have severely weakened the USA. Trump is a joke all around the world.
1
I'm an extremely liberal Democrat; in fact, I have no qualms telling people that I'm a Socialist. But I don't want a Socialist running at the top of the Democratic ticket. Though I believe that our society would benefit from socialism, I also understand that most Americans don't feel the same as I do--at least at this point in time. What I can hope for is a candidate who understands the benefits of many socialized programs and would be open to advancing their incorporation into American society. Political idealism, conservative or liberal, is best attained when tempered with political pragmatics. Social evolution is ever so much more pleasant and likely to endure than revolution.
2
It IS arguable that part of the reason Trump won was not that he was the most far right candidate in the Republican primary, but rather he was the most moderate, at least on economic issues.
Remember, he campaigned as someone who wasn't going to touch Medicare/Medicaid, who was going to mitigate the impact of globalism on blue collar workers with tariffs and even with crackdowns on hedge funds, who was going to come up with a better health insurance system.
Now, many people--especially those of us with experience with him in NY--knew he wasn't serious about any of those things; we knew he was a grifting oligarchic wannabe who was merely saying what he thought certain groups wanted to hear, and he was likely to govern as a typical oligarchic Republican, which he basically has (all due respect to the role of white supremacy in his victory).
But for a lot of the blue collar white voters who once voted for Bush types in primaries and maybe even for Obama in the general election, this economic rhetoric seemed more moderate than the globalism pushed by other Republicans.
Given that those voters can now see how Trump's economic stances have hurt them (especially in farm country), it's not too hard to suppose some may not vote for him again. He'll still get the bigot vote, but some of those upper Midwestern and coal belt vote shifters may be primed to shift again.
But only if the Democratic nominee can make a real economic case, whatever other viewpoints are argued.
2
I am a lifelong liberal Democrat who detests Mr. Trump so, in my opinion, the most important factor in choosing a Democratic presidential nominee is whether that individual can defeat the incumbent. I do not believe that any of the current "progressive" candidates has sufficient appeal to the entire electorate to produce a victory, and if any of them is the Democratic nominee I will register a "protest" by voting for Trump. I strongly believe that Barack Obama's recent comments indicating that our democracy has been set up to progress incrementally, and that ideological purity encourages a "circular" firing squad.
1
Hugh Hewitt on Meet the Press said that Trump continues to be the best interview in all of media, and he's right.
In other words, it really doesn't matter what fly's out of the presidents mouth, he has a captivated audience, whether you love him or hate him.
The democrats have to find a moderate unified voice to counter Trumps, and if it doesn't resonate, and echo louder than Trumps, forget 2020.
1
Pundits seems to think that voters make decisions based on actual policy. I don't think that's true. So many policy positions of Democrats are ones that are supported overwhelmingly by the voting populace. Examples: affordable healthcare for all, action on climate change, some form of gun control....the list goes on. These are also positions that most of the developed world have already figured out how to accomplish.
We're held hostage by a right-wing propaganda machine that lines the pockets of the wealthy and manipulates voters to vote against their own wishes. This is done through straw-man arguments (just look at how the Green New Deal is being presented on Fox, etc.) and heavy pushes and misrepresentations on hot-button, single-issue voting topics (abortion number one, gun-rights number two).
But the root cause is money in politics. Shorten the election cycle, provide publicly funded elections, eliminate or drastically limit individual donations to politicians. This will alleviate a huge number of our political challenges.
3
For any true American patriot it’s “ABT” - anyone but Trump.
2
Wow! Radical? You’re calling the Democrats radical and not the Republicans extremists? It’s not liberals who have been shooting up, bombing, or threatening the lives of large swaths of people for some ideology—that’s conservatives. And yet all of Trumplandia thinks democrats=radical. Sad!
3
Anything is possible.
"Democrats contain much more heterogeneity across social groups than the more homogeneous white, Christian conservative Republican Party. "
And yet in a heavily Democratic city like NY, the public school system is still racially segregated - among the worst in the country.
Based on the aforementioned quote one would think the NYC Public School system to be a wonderful racial mosaic with each school representing a racial demographic of the city.
That was the scheme forced on the Detroit Public School system as well as the Boston Public School system. Posters here have indicated nothing but disdain for those parents in Boston who protested against such schemes.
So after NYC Democrats are finished patting themselves on the back, well you then need some deep introspection.
Now back to hammering on the folks in flyover country.
5
It is pretty obvious, Democratic Presidential candidates are are pro-reparations to win the Black vote in the Primaries. Then they can pivot to racist Republicans won't support it in the general election. More accurately put, they are playing Black voters.
6
Generically, the New Democrat Party supports open borders. Some Democrats might say they dont, but Democrats cant say that, then proclaim, well, if you make it across the border without getting caught, we will welcome you with open arms at any one of the sanctuary cities we set up for you. Then we'll give you drivers licenses , Dream Act in state college tuition, and now even free healthcare NY and Ca. And if we ever get another Democrat elected President, we'll never build a wall on the border, so the rest of your family and friends could cross over, and we'll even make you a citizen.
And then of course there's reparations, govt run healthcare, and full on socialism.
The Democrat Party of Bill Clinton, jimmy Carter and Kennedy would never have supported such issues . Todays does. Thats why they are throwing in with foreigners to help get them, elected. Many moderate Dems left them in 2016, and will never come back.
7
Liberal logic: shove out employers like Amazon, who employs thousands of Americans. And welcome migrants whom you've never met, in which at least some are criminals. Trump will win again.
8
@Not 99pct
Instead of repeating the same misrepresentations and lies this president is already too well know for, why not take the time and do more research on your own instead of making gross generalizations about "Liberal logic"?
Either that, or maybe just change channels once in awhile.
1
@N. Smith You don't get it. Trump's disconnect from the truth is not lost on voters. But he attacks issue the swing states care about: jobs and border security. So touting social identity, 100% clean energy no matter what, demonizing employers to the point they pick up and leave is not going to win the swing states. California and NY going from 80% Dem to 90% doesn't help you in 2020. Nominating some privileged west-coast liberal that thinks clean energy and free sex change operations should be the country's #1 priorities is completely disconnected from swing voters that want to know if they can get save up for vacation or be able to retire at all.
However we define 'radical', I doubt any of the democratic candidates can ever be as radical as a spoiled weasel, raise in privilege and devoid of feelings, as Donald J. Trump. Within his deep ignorance (by choice, mind you), he is a master puppeteer in demagogy, and a natural liar and a crook. He assaulted the presidency by insulting all and everybody in a most childish fashion...and gaining incomprehensibly a bunch of credulous folks (his base) where a cult of personality removed their willingness to think for themselves, and take Trump's lies as the dogma truth, however fictitious and maliciously nonsensical. No matter how far left democrats choose to go, they must hammer into the population the world of intrigue and violence Trump got us into, trampling on all democratic values we held, until recently, as 'sacred'. The healthy division of checks and balances of power destroyed. The partisan protection of Trump's nasty behavior and suspected obstruction of justice by AG Barr, which he announced openly to gain the post, is yet another insult the public must be made aware, over and over.
2
@manfred Marcus And yet time and again Trump reaches out and helps ordinary people. If he's so privileged why does he do so? It seems like the cult of hatred blinds people to his good points. Can't people admire his positives even if they dislike his presidency or is America so divided now that anyone from the other party is 'The Great Satan'?
3
@John Smythe Trump has a positive side? That's news to a lot of people that base their thinking, and rational discussions, based on the facts, and the truth, not in lies and insults nor in a mantra of 'fear, hate and destruction'. That Trump may say the right thing by mistake, so be it. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
1
Making slavery reparations a campaign issue will GUARANTEE us another Trump term, which we can ill afford. They might as well throw in some support for handicapped transgendered bathrooms.
7
We've been here before in 72 with McGovern and Nixon. It didn't work out well for liberals. Be careful what you wish for.
3
The Republicans are the radicals. The Democrats are still not as "radical" as the Roosevelt administration. Most would fit in nicely in the Eisenhower administration.
3
This discussion is like the one we had before the Nixon McGovern 1972 election, a corrupt president opposed by a liberal opponent. Think about this. Moderate Democrats do not want a repeat of that debacle, but now even more dire than what it was then. i do not expect much support for this argument from idealistic well meaning Democrats, but first of all we need to defeat Trump first before any great ideas can be implemented.
I cannot stand Donald Trump. Can't stand the man. But if the Democrats run on any or all of these far-left proposals, I will have no choice but to hold my nose and vote for him.
7
Reparations will be a guaranteed general election loser, regardless of their justification. Eliminating ICE will likewise be a loser once people actually think about it--Trump's making it easy to hate on ICE, but people still want a secure border. Medicare for all has potential, but it also has potential to be seen as far too risky for the many Americans who "like their Doctors." Green New Deal is probably the safest, as long as it's done rationally (for example, building new nuclear instead of just saying we'll be 100% renewable in 15 years, which is simply impossible.) However, all of those together will be too easy for Republicans to bash, pushing the critical 5% over to their side in FL, OH and TX. Democrats are clearly being led by the millennial social justice warrior faction right now, to their doom in the general election.
6
There are two Americas for liberals in our country: Blue State and Red State. Since we don't have to work to change hearts in Blue States, how about listening to what we Red State liberals can tell you? We are out here fighting in the trenches, where our liberalism is less philosophy and more like constant work. We can offer invaluable advice on how to win back those states lost in 2016.
Democrats have got to take back labor and offer better solutions for the Rust Belt besides their favorite canard of "education & training." Training for what if there is no investment coming into a community? For over a century companies have located in a certain town and then trained. New Yorkers rightfully rejected Amazon for expecting the community to bend to their will, so stop capitulating to this fantasy that companies are absolved of creating the workforce and environment they need. Get back to advocating for labor of all kinds.
And we can offer no stronger advice than to abandon the word "socialism." Yes, the word has various meanings. I get it. We all get it. But Democrats are always getting in the weeds with nuance and definitions. Socialized services will not suddenly destroy the economic freedom of our capitalist nation, but for all but the Millennials, the word socialism is enmeshed in the USSR, Cuba, and Orwell books. If Dems don't stop using it this word, they may as well be preparing for Trump's 2021 inaugural speech.
5
Priority 1 is beating Trump. Any Democrat (and indeed most if not all Republicans) would be a vast improvement. Trump is such a corrosive influence on society, democracy and the environment.
Don't stuff this up again, America.
2
So after all those stated facts, quotes, and political philosophizing, Edsall, to the sound of a drum roll, delivers his well-considered conclusion: It might work, or it might not.
:-/
If you can forgive a gross analogy, Trump has slit the throat of the ACA. To save the patient, first the bleeding must be stopped. As a Democrat, I favor an incremental approach to healthcare, not because it is politically expedient, but because it is the correct action at this point in time.
Who, not what issues, will get young people and African-Americans to the polls in large numbers in the swing states is the essential question. Hillary Clinton lost in the crucial swing states not because of her policies but because of her sex and her campaigning style.
Just because Trump is a terrible president in every way doesn't mean that the Democrats should campaign with every progressive idea ever created.
2
There is no meeting the party of Trump's bigotry in the middle.
4
The only thing extreme is the amount of times the media and Republicans try to paint Democrats as extreme.
5
Everything written on this topic is stupid, starting with:
"A number of Democratic presidential candidates, for example... ...have declared themselves in favor of such MULTIBILLION dollar programs as Medicare for all and a Green New Deal."
Yes, and McDonalds has served hundreds. If you don't understand the magnitude of the problems, you'll get nowhere. Because you need to state the costs accurately AND THEN compare those to the costs of what we are doing now. In spite of the enormous cost of Medicare for all, it will be CHEAPER than what we spend on health care now. And as for for a green new deal... we are currently killing the planet. What does that cost??? Medicare for all, and a serious carbon tax, soon!
4
Lots of comments about the need to go to the middle, but not one comment making a suggestion as to who that might be.
Why is that? Is there no candidate that is a moderate?
Or is there no moderate that anyone is excited over?
Nobody willing to name names.
Who are the "moderates"? Biden? Buttegiege? Klobachar?Hickenlooper?
Why isnt anyone excited about any of these names?
The only name thrown around is Bernie, of whom many worry could get the nomination. What does that tell you? That the New Democrat Party has gone full blown socialist?
Perhaps moderate Democrats are going to come to the realization that their party left them.
1
If these radical things become the platform, kiss 2020 goodbye.
4
Reparations, in the absence of murder charges against police officers who shoot plainly unarmed black men in the back, are a cheap dodge and crooked scam. The real radical agenda would be to institute real consequences for violating those basic rights of African-American citizens.
If one thinks about this a bit, the "radical" idea of Democrats to pay reparations is a cheap cop out, throwing money instead of contrition at the national embarrassment of racism. It will solve nothing, and it is analogous to creating Indian Reservations. Democrats would win more elections, arguing for actual justice instead of for payoffs. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
2
I'm completely in favor of compensating black Americans for the cost of slavery, assuming that one can find former slaves still living in the U.S. along with former slave-owners who should be forced into making payment. If, on the other hand, we're going to "compensate" the descendants of slaves (including those whose families have grown wealthy over the century and a half since America's slaves were emancipated), then I'm going to initiate a law suit against the government of Egypt demanding reparations (plus interest!) for the 400 years that my Hebrew ancestors were kept in bondage. Fellow progressives, please note: clinging fast to this issue will pretty much guarantee four more years of Trumpian madness and bigotry.
comment submitted on 4/10 at 10:35 AM
6
This is a seriously warped article with an Orwellian perversion of language worthy of Fox News. The people called "moderates" are those who do not want to implement universal health care for all Americans, something which citizens of virtually all other developed countries have; people who supported the criminal, immoral and stupid invasion of Iraq; and those, such as Obama and Hillary Clinton, whose backing of ISDS tribunals in trade agreements which would have effectively ended representative democracy in all participating nations. Those called "extremists" here typically take the opposite positions. Neo-cons and Neo-libs are not moderates. Mr. Edsall, it's time to have your glasses changed. You're seeing things either upside down or backwards.
1
What you promote as "boldly progressive" I consider humanely decent. I wish your perspective weren't so skewed.
2
The Democrats' losing streak for sure began in 1968, not later. I think a big part of its later manifestation was a cultural antagonism toward most of the electorate. It was also a failed health initiative that triggered the "Contract with (on?) America," from which the party has never really recovered the initiative.
Part of the problem is failed labels: We call radical right-wing proposals "conservative," which they are not and intolerant or prejudicial left-wing proposals "liberal," which they are not. Conservative respect and liberal tolerance are both out of faction.
Another big part of the political polarization is that we drive decisions with primaries and caucuses, which are the most destructive instuments of vote suppression in the USA.
Why all or nothing? Look at the area needing the boldest action. This is climate change. If we don't act now on this major threat to the future it won't matter much what we do about anything else.
Income inequality requires ambitious change, too, and it affects most of the population. Elizabeth Warren has announced the most comprehensive strategy on this issue.
Boutique concerns can wait for a second term.
2
"How Radical Is Too Radical for 2020 Democrats?
Or is that question beside the point in the Trump era?"
Is that really the question? The Trump era? There's no such thing. The creeping fascism of the Republican Party is what brought forth Trump- not the other way around.
What exactly is Radical or a radical Democrat? Prognosticators like Edsall et al. have no qualms with *accepting* the status quo of Radical extremism of the GOP:
Voter intimidation, voter repression, racist gerrymandering, weakening civil rights protections for minority and underrepresented groups; destruction of the environment; weakening consumer protections( What about those wondrous Boeing Max 8's; unfettered capitalism/greed at its best. Get Government out of our lives huh?)The list is endless.
Yet, bemoan the prospect of some Democratic candidates finally concluding that walking in the middle of the proverbial road really a safe venture- unless you want to become roadkill.
I surmise, we can have an America where the bounty finally starts raising from the bottom up or continue the trickle-down-fear-mongering we've had over the past 50 years.
Republicans didn't get where they are today- on luck; they honed & hammered their message. Democrats must do the same. If some (or many) wish to name it, "Radical"- so be it.
150
@Candlewick Facism is marked by taking over health care (ACA), industry (GM, Chrysler), and ever growing central government.
You are correct to be concerned, but mistaken about whom concerns you.
10
@Candlewick
Excellent
3
@Candlewick Amen! Just like Lenin said. We have to follow his leadership.
5
The trouble with climate change is that "incremental change" does nothing to address it. Mr. Nesbit's infatuation with the facile rhetoric of "cross-alliances" and picking 'the best ideas' from every ideological viewpoint is typical of a popular brand of climate change denialism: wishful thinking masquerading as "pragmatic consensus-driven initiatives." Unfortunately for Nesbit, climate change is not amenable to feel-good policy bromides that promise to gore no one's precious ox.
The party that embraces the "green new deal" is the party that embraces the future as it unfolds in real time. A party that can redefine the "American Way of Life" as something other than the accumulation material possessions will survive. Trump and his angry aging boomers can pretend it's still 1955, but only for a time. The effects of climate change on our society and economy are accelerating and becoming increasingly obvious to everyone.
Staunch Republicans are different from avid Democrats. Trump voters have become a cult. Reason will never prevail. Liberals like to argue. They are not a reliable voting block. The only hope is to lead by listening: elicit the varied voices of the electorate. Instead of pushing a canned agenda, provide a forum for voter ideas. Voters want a voice and a stake in the democratic process.
Democrats only has one chance to claim the Presidency in 2020 and that is Bernie Sanders because what seems to be happening is a plan to get Trump reelected and it is being pushed by the pro-Netanyahu/Israeli elements of Republican as well as the Democratic party.
The actions of Trump administration in Mid East has been a windfall for the Israeli Government and would try it utmost to defame most of the Democratic candidates by calling them anti-Semite, Socialist, extreme leftist etc.
The only candidate who can withstand these kinds of scathing criticism would be Senator Sanders.
Recent pronouncements by Netanyahu re the West Bank and the Settlement issues doesn't bode well for peace in the area. Netanyahu will need Trump to continue his reign of terror and would do anything to engineer Trump's win in the election.
The reality of our politics is such that money can change anyone's image without having any facts to back it up. Repeating lies on TV/Media can alter anyone's image and the truth about the politician's views.
2
Here we go again.
The GOP is a radical, broken party. After years of screaming "repeal and replace," the GOP's "replacement" for the ACA was tax cuts for the wealthiest and loss of coverage for 10s of millions. Controlling the WH, Senate and House, the GOP could only come up with a massive tax cut for the wealthiest, while eliminating many middle-class deductions. No infrastructure. No green technology. Disastrous cabinet picks. A dishonest president who is unfit for office and under multiple criminal investigations.
The political hack installed as AG is suppressing the Mueller report, much the way the GOP suppresses voting rights. Misguided and mean-spirited policies are the norm for the GOP. Edsall focuses on ICE and Reparations, yet most Democrats are focused on health care, the environment, and a fair tax code.
Radical? That would be the GOP: Party of trump.
4
The Democratic presidential candidates are trying to out radicalize each other with their proposed policies. It all sounds wonderful until the actual costs are put on paper. People want benefits until they have to pay for them. If they have to pay exorbitant fees they lose interest quickly. The Democrats are great for spending others people money. They are the tax and spend party who know no bounds. They just do not know when to stop. This is very frightening.
4
With the Democrat candidate list now 20+. it's clear that one clown car can't hold them all. Will it be one clown bus, or two clown cars with one of them holding the radicals?
"recent research suggests that policy radicalism pays off in primaries." AOC is certainly a testament to that belief, and has no downside in a district where winning the primary guarantees election.
2
It is annoying to see political discussions in which people talk about "right" and "left" without defining their terms.
In fact, the political spectrum is not a line but points on an x-y axis.
You have your personal behavior issue axis and your economic/political axis. A person may be liberal on one axis and conservative on the other.
A prime example is the Libertarian Party. It is completely laissez-faire on personal behavior, which puts it on the left edge of that axis but completely dog-eat-dog on the economic/political axis, which puts it on the right edge of that axis.
But then there are the Mennonites and other pacifist churches. They tend to be very conservative on the personal behavior axis, but their pacifism has led them to skepticism about conventional political ideas, so they are often on the left end of the economic/political axis.
The parties have made a habit of using hot-button issues on the personal behavior axis (abortion) to win votes.
The Democrats need to take a clear-eyed look at the problems facing average Americans and come up with a platform that addresses those problems. They need to get over their fear of alienating corporate contributors.
Hillary Clinton's fans HATE Bernie Sanders, but they should note that he raised millions in contributions from ordinary people by talking about serious, unmet needs. $25 from an ordinary person guarantees a vote. $25,000 from a PAC guarantees nothing.
2
Three weeks ago I watched as a so-called "Progressive" spat on a moderate democrat at a local bar because there was disagreement on the green new deal. This week I read headlines of a "Progressive" bullying an old man in a Starbucks. The radical left has a hate problem. I don't see Democrats with a moral compass getting behind radical positions when "Progressives" are demonstrating they are actually "Regressive." The Democratic Party needs to do some housecleaning.
6
The question is definitely beside the point. Assuming one is fine with a Trump Era lasting through 2024.
So why has the GOP politicized Global Warming? The science is in. The economics are in. If we don't act NOW to convert to a carbon-free economy, we'll destroy our only ecosphere and kill all life on earth, including ourselves.
Do you think you have time to dilly dally? You don't. By 2100, the seas will have risen at least ten feet and will rise another foot every decade after that. But these projections are probably on the low side as ice melt has been happening faster than anticipated. If we succeed in melting all the ice by 2100, which we could with nonlinear effects, the seas will rise 260 feet. Our major coastal cities, along with most of the state of Florida will be submerged.
We are already seeing super-storms that are only supposed to occur every 500 years but now occurring on a regular basis.
2
All Trump had to do in 2016 was come out first among all of the various candidates in the early primaries; he didn't have to win a majority. ("Mr. 33%") The Democrats primaries don't work that way. In most states, delegate votes are allocated proportionately to the number of votes received, it is not a "winner takes all" system.
The Republican primary plan was designed to knock out pretenders to the nomination giving all the votes to the most established candidate. In 2016, that system backfired on their party giving them a radical, unqualified candidate pretending to be a populist and a conservative. Because so many voters bought into the idea that Trump was both of those things, they can't abandon him now because it would involve a reputation of their base assumptions from 2016. They would have to accept that they were wrong.
The Democrat's primary system this time around is creating a dog fight among, how many?, 14 candidates. In an effort to distinguish themselves, each candidate is likely to try out radicalizing the others leading to a path toward defeat in November, 2020.
Short story: the Democrats have to go big in 2020 but they have to also remain true to fundamental American values. Trying to force Medicare for all on the 180+ million people who now get health insurance through their employers is a losing idea. Green new deal? The Republican attack apparatus will make that into a frightening idea akin to turning off the AC in 98 degree weather. Be careful.
Single-payer health care is an extreme position? The entire modern world has it except us. Addressing climate change is extreme? Literally every other country on Earth has signed on except us.
This is how how far off the rails Fox News and the GOP have taken this country. What should be mainstream is seen as impossible. Our entire political discourse is totally warped.
Yes, there are positions too liberal to win general elections (reparations is no doubt one of them.) But any party that wins my vote HAS to address climate change and health care, the two most important societal issues of our day. Dong so in a practical, reasonable manner had better be a prerequisite for winning the Democratic nomination.
5
First, Democrats need a platform and vision that are more than “we’re not as bad as the Republicans”, which excites no one. The country needs a real alternative to the conservatism of the last several decades that has brought decline to this country.
Second, let’s focus on winning the war and not just the battle. Would losing to Trump in 2020 be that bad? Short term pain, yes, but then he’d be in office when the adverse effects of his policies really took hold.
Republican policies only help the few. Democrats should have a truly alternative set of ideas when the majority finally recognizes this. And if the majority don’t, well, the country is doomed and “moderate” policies aren’t going to help.
2
@Jerome
"Republican policies only help the few."
Lowest unemployment in decades. Lowest unemployment among minority groups for even longer. Prosperity is improving for all. That is not just helping "the few".
4
That wasn’t a Republican “policy.” The economy went under in 2008 (Bush) and began it’s slow recovery under Obama and has moved up from that point on. Tax cuts favoring the very wealthy are hardly “ for the people.”
1
@jaco
Prosperity is not "improving for all".
One look at what's happening to the 99% of Americans who aren't part of the corporate elite and tax-free über wealthy will prove that.
Look around.
1
Has Edsall read the warnings from scientists that we probably have only a dozen years in which to address climate change? Does he not understand the implications of those warnings? Or does he believe Exxon instead of the scientists? We are talking about the survival of civilization as we have known it. Either we pass along a virtually uninhabitable planet to our children, or we take bold action. Such action will involve some serious social change away from a society based on endless consumerism and greed, and the Democrats will have to explain this to Americans. If we are lucky, Americans may be ready to listen.
1
@Barbara
What climate scientist are saying we have twelve years? Who are they? Was there a survey? How many replied?How many are competent? Speaking out of their field?
It seems politicians with the help of social psychologist and marketing types are creating hysteria in every aspect of our lives. It sells and steals votes.
1
@JoeG
See an example of one dire warning at
https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/
Here’s the problem: We need big change, serious change, possibly radical change in the next ten years, or we’re in deep deep trouble.
The natural environment which sustains us all is showing grave signs of damage from the huge pressures we’ve put on it over the past 50 years. Wildlife populations down by half or more, insect populations by 75% in many places, songbirds vanishing, fish and other sea life down as much as 90%. All that before the worst effects of climate change, which we’ll begin to see over the next couple of decades.
It’s not just a reaction to Trump. We blew our chances for incremental change. We did nothing or worse than nothing for 30 years.
We can’t get that time back, and the younger generations know it. They know that it’s radical change or bust now, so they’re pushing for it.
Sure, they - and I - would dearly like to beat Trump next year. But what’s the point of winning if we’re not going to do any of the things that desperately need to be done?
I suppose it might be nicer to have a decent captain on the bridge while the ship goes down, but that’s all we’d get from winning with a moderate incrementalist candidate. (See also: the Obama years.) There’s a word for that kind of victory, and that word is pyrrhic.
1
Three things politically have happened over the last 40 years:
1. The conservative wing of the Republican party has become more powerful and moved further to the right.
2. The liberal wing of the Democratic party has become more powerful and moved further to the left.
3. The country overall has become more conservative and moved to the right.
For those arguing the Democratic party needs to move further to the left to win a presidential election, I would suggest the following:
1. See point number 3 above.
2. Too many components in the coalition you want to put together--African-Americans, Latinos, the young--do not consistently vote at high enough levels to win presidential elections.
5
As always, Mr. Edsall's column is stimulating and thought provoking and underscores what I see as the difficult challenge for the Democrats in 2020.
Namely, I am afraid that the Democratic "lifeboat" is not large enough to contain the many political refugees from all corners of the political system who are now swamping the Democratic boat.
Assuming Trump holds on to his rock solid 35% support (which is enough to win in our fragmented political system), I just don't see any one candidate or set of ideas (other than pure anti-Trumpism) that can unify the remaining 65% non-Trumpers.
As Mr. Edsall points out, the Democrats are an incredibly diverse and heterogeneous group. Then you add to it all of the ex-Republicans, such as Joe Scarborough, David Brooks and William Kristol, who have been drummed out of the GOP and are now demanding a say in the Democrats' nominee, as an outlet for their anti-Trumpism, and you have recipe for complete chaos.
As I say, I don't see anyone on the political horizon capable of uniting all of these disparate groups and challenging the rabidly loyal, Fox News, Trump personality cult formerly known as the Republican Party.
2
declared themselves in favor of such multibillion dollar programs as Medicare for all and a Green New Deal.
These are multi trillion dollar programs, not multi billion. An order of magnitude error.
8
Well, a trillion is made up of many billions.. Also, it's 3 orders of magnitude, not one.
@Nancy
Actually, his reference to an "order of magnitude error" was intended to convey a general unit of measurement, not a precise calculation. A person who referred to a legislative proposal as a "billion dollar error" would not be wrong because the error was three billion instead of two billion.
But you knew that.
@Wine Country Dude. "Order of magnitude" has a precise meaning: a power of ten. A trillion is three orders of magnitude more than a billion.
How come European Americans, Caucasians, are still called white while other people are called by their continental/geographic locations. I'm a pale tan/pink/yellowish color. I'd like to be equally represented in the media.
7
As a lifelong Democrat I fear that the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party will push us into another 4 years of Trump by making unrealistic promises that American taxpayers cannot possibly afford.
Look at all the reasons Bernie Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and their merry band of socialist Congresspersons (and quite a few announced Democratic Presidential candidates) are giving the electorate to vote for Trump in 2020: free Medicare for all, free college for all, confiscatory taxes, open borders, late-term abortions, anti-Semitism, a Green New Deal, abolish ICE, reparations, allowing prisoners to vote, etc. etc.
The ultra-left Democrats (socialists) seem to think that those in fly-over land (and quite a few on the elite coasts) are stupid and won't realize that these pie-in-the-sky dreams are fiscally and politically impossible.
Isn't it time to admit that "progressive" really means "socialist?" And, as Margaret Thatcher so aptly put it, "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money."
Millionaire Bernie Sanders has made an expedient pledge to run as a Democrat, thus attempting to mask his true socialist identity and intentions. The old-guard Democratic leaders seem totally flummoxed by the likes of Ocasio-Cortez.
I really hope the moderates can take back of our party's platform and return the Presidency to the Democrats.
13
As a lifelong Republican, I agree and hope a moderate in my party primaries the president.
@Mon Ray Great post, but you forgot the Dems' "criminal justice reform/just open the prisons" agenda.
1
As a lifelong Democrat I fear that the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party will push us into another 4 years of Trump by making unrealistic promises that American taxpayers cannot possibly afford.
Look at all the reasons Bernie Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and their merry band of socialist Congresspersons (and quite a few announced Democratic Presidential candidates) are giving the electorate to vote for Trump in 2020: free Medicare for all, free college for all, confiscatory taxes, open borders, late-term abortions, anti-Semitism, a Green New Deal, reparations, allowing prisoners to vote, etc. etc.
The ultra-left Democrats (socialists) seem to think that those in fly-over land (and quite a few on the elite coasts) are stupid and won't realize that these pie-in-the-sky dreams are fiscally and politically impossible.
Isn't it time to admit that "progressive" really means "socialist?" And, as Margaret Thatcher so aptly put it, "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money."
Millionaire Bernie Sanders has made an expedient pledge to run as a Democrat, thus attempting to mask his true socialist identity and intentions. The old-guard Democratic leaders seem totally flummoxed by the likes of Ocasio-Cortez.
I really hope the moderates can take back of our party's platform and return the Presidency to the Democrats.
1
With all this in mind, Sanders looks like a strong candidate. Behind all the socialism talk, he's still an old white man who was moderate on guns in the past and realizes, unlike many of his Democratic competitors, that you can have open borders or you can have a stronger social safety net, but you can't have both. And his more radical economic policies are the most universally popular part of the leftist agenda.
So he could play well with a substantial minority of white voters while holding on to most of the liberal activist fringe as well.
The American people will choose Sanders and Socialism in 2020.
Supporting reparations for descendants of former slaves and supporting the abolition of ICE are great ways to ensure that Trump wins the general election in 2020.
12
The Democrats could elect a conservative in their primary, and it wouldn't make any difference. It just isn't in their DNA to be bigots and racists, and that's what it will take to compete with Donald Trump.
While praising the intelligence of the American electorate, he secretly knows that they can be led around like a bulls with nose rings - only instead of bull rings, he uses their beliefs and prejudices to lead them wherever he wants.
If DJT doesn't destroy our fragile democracy, he has published the blueprint and playbook for some other bigoted demagogue to do it later. If a democracy like America's is going to exist, there will have to be a paradigm shift in human thought throughout the world.
In the near future, we will program the human mind in the computer based on a "survival" algorithm, which will provide irrefutable proof as to how we trick the mind with our ridiculous beliefs about what is supposed to survive - producing minds programmed de facto for destruction. These minds see the survival of a particular belief as more important than the survival of us all. When we understand all this, we will begin the long trek back to reason and sanity.
See RevolutionOfReason.com
1
Of Course there's Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. By now I would have hoped that there would be a Democratic candidate and a platform that would have united the voters whether Democrat or not to overwhelmingly overcome Trump. Too many candidates...too many directions for voters to take. Trump's rally supporters and his Loyal Fox Nation...are just that...A Nation. A Nation of our fellow Americans...family members, co workers,neighbors...etc. They stick together no matter what and that's the problem. Vote Blue No Matter Who is our only hope...like it or not. Whether we completely agree with whoever turns out to be the frontrunner....whether we are Democrats or not. Think Blue and vote to remove the worst President in American History ! United we stand...Divided and ….2016 repeats itself !!
1
Polls gave us trump and keep him there with his “ base”.
I do not think looking to polls will tell us the winner
As long as trump leaves and the next crew rebuilds America with a heart and kindness and eliminates the electoral college and the senate and has a constitutional congress. Let’s change the paperwork to fit the times. Let’s break up America into regions of cooperation. More countries and less states. It is time. Revolution again against hate and tryranny
I can dream.
We desperately need to meet in the middle.
3
Addressing climate change, affordable health care and education, an end to illegal immigration, better gun control, higher wages... boring grown-up stuff. Let’s talk about the radical fringe - Free health care! Free college! Open borders! Eat the rich! Socialism! The Democrats have gone totally crazy!! Mr. Edsall’s question is not it a question in the minds of the majority of Democrats, and acting like it is does a disservice to us all. Furthermore, it’s a disservice to the candidates, who have to make impossible, radical, proposals just to get the press to cover their campaigns.
1
As a moderate republican who didn’t vote for trump I can say I will not vote for a socialist candidate that’s supports Reparations For slavery, Medicare for all free this and free that ....
If you want trump 2020 this is how you get trump 2020
9
The Democrats are going to destroy themselves arguing over who most deserves to be a President- a woman, a gay man, or an African American.
Looking forward to four more years of President Trump. Making America great again!
6
Greg,
No one has thrown their support behind Pete because he’s gay. It’s despite that. Just like Obama in 2008.
Having read the comments today, it is pretty clear that President Obama understated the problem. It's not that "we start sometimes creating what’s called a ‘circular firing squad,’" The circular firing squad is formed already and is blasting away non-stop! Trump - with his feral - cunning must be smiling!
2
I hope Bernie Sanders wins the Democrat nomination. And then lets see how a 79 year old Socialist & Communist Sympathizer goes in an American General Election. I know for sure he will not get anywhere near the 270 electoral college votes needed. The majority of Americans will never want to live under a Socialist/Communist Leader. No country has ever prospered under a Socialist/Communist government.
7
Okay, NYT, there are several candidates who are very practical even if they are exposing what the Upper West Side considers radical.
Biden is still waiting in the wings for things to settle down before he stakes out any positions.
Bernie is way ahead of the rest of the pack and he is a realist. He votes for bills that don't go far enough to solve a problem because he knows that half a loaf is better than none. He has a set of core issues that are mainstream in the rest of the developed world. In spite of this, he scares you.
Warren is very practical and good at policy. She is a firebrand, and knows her stuff. She also scares you.
Harris is a two-fer, female and African American. She raises money from corporate America and still she scares you.
Pete is popular, sort of like West Highland terriers and as likely to win, so he doesn't scare you.
Beto has blown his chances but he is rich so who cares?
The rest are also-rans.
Where will you be during the primaries? Rooting for the also-rans.
It's tax season and we could be filing for free like the Europeans. You believe it? The government actually does the return for you in some countries.
Not here H$R Block and intuit spent billions to prevent the IRS to set up filing for free. It had BI-partisan support.
Reparations? They were already paid by the hundreds of thousands of whites killed or grievously wounded during the Civil War, a conflict whose main aim was to abolish slavery.
13
@Mike
Shocking comment. And incredibly depressing.
@LFK Imagine how depressing it was for the families of the Union soldiers killed or hideously maimed in their attempt to free the slaves.
Does anyone remember 1972 when the Democrats nominated a decent, very liberal Senator from South Dakota, a combat war veteran, who lost every state except Massachusetts, to Richard Nixon?
Do Democrats want a repeat with someone who is worse than Nixon? Keep pandering to the extreme left wing-nuts of the party, who probably were not born in 1972, and you’ll get King Kong Trump.
Is there no center left Democrat, besides Joe Biden, who has gravitas and can appeal to the mainstream center of American politics? Is there an Independent, similar to Eisenhower, who can cast a wide net and restore the ship of state?
3
EDSALL May have sucked on a lemon in framing his arguments in this column. Also, his definitions of certain terms would not cut muster in other contexts. Specifically, if you took a poll of people who belong to the EU whether they approved of universal healthcare, I believe that the proportions would be strongly in favor of the system they already have in place, which provides just that. Meaning, in effect, that US policy is laggardly and *iggardly (which, by the way, derived from roots in Norse and Old English having nothing to do with color, means STINGY or MISERLY). Though the GOPpers detest the fact that those who receive Obamacare overwhelming like it. What truly is radical is Trump's "tax overhaul" which takes the 99% to cleaner while paying for tax breaks for the 1% that will cost between $1.6 and $2.2 trillion over the next decade. To make things worse, Trump is proposing the transfer of another transfer of $1 trillion ripped off from the 99% as a giveaway to the 1%. Edsall's opinions would better serve the public interest if he were to write about the war on the middle class being foisted by Trump. After all, when asked during a presidential debate how much he paid in taxes he boasted that it was "nothing," which he described as "smart business." You can easily see where Trump places himself: clearly with the 1%, making war on the middle class to destroy it for the benefit of the 1%. His message to the 99% is "Go drop dead!"
1
@John Jones - Meanwhile, Medicare for all would cost at least $3 trillion every year. The total payroll in the US is $8 trillion. Who's going to pay high taxes? Everyone!
1
This idea of paying reparations to people because of hardships suffered by their ancestors is stupid. My ancestors were a hardscrabble lot from Scotland and I am pretty sure they never owned any slaves so why should I pay for sins my ancestors didn't commit? If the Democrats support such a plan, I will be left without a political party to support. They will also lose.
8
Heaven can wait. For now and forever, purgatory.
That question is beside the point in the Trump era.
America's steady drift rightward into oligarchy over the past 30 years has reached a radical proportion of its own.
We may be about to experience a Progressive "moment." Let's not let caution and faint-hearted fear of the Fox News mentality shoot it down before it gets off the ground.
1
Reparations for slavery described as "checks to black people" is not a majority position. What could become a majority position could be policies advocated by a national commission to consider the negative consequences of centuries of slavery and discrimination and the steps that would truly level the playing field. And what about the situation of the Native Americans? Maybe they should be included too.
3
With Thomas Edsall, the game is whose reality are you going to believe, the Green New Deal's whose blend of ecological and economic popular "mobilization" heads toward that which won WWII, or the incrementalists of the party, who say these policies can't carry the rest of the country with them?
Please note that there is no mention in this article, of the scientific findings of the UN report or our own report to Congress from US scientists in November - which said the scope and pace of economic changes needed to stop/dramatically slow climate disruption is "unprecedented" in history. That is the reality based driver which is too damaging to Edsall's biases - towards incrementalism - so he doesn't mention it.
There are really two version of economic reality, one for the Clinton-Edsall insider's way of life, and for one for the bottom 60%, where I live. That "break" or "divide" on how much money you have left over at the end of the month contributed to both Sanders and Trumps success in 2016. It is still there because it is reality.
Paying for it is a favorite topic of incrementalists, but Edsall doesn't ever discuss Modern Monetary Theory, which even Martin Wolf of the Financial Times gives more decent standing to than Edsall, Larry Summers or the pope of economics, Paul Krugman.
If the MMT is right, we can afford the Green New Deal, because we are in a situation of national survival, just like we were in Dec. of 1941, where paying for it did not come up.
1
Although I can accept austerity as a necessary component of implementation of the Green New Deal, most of my neighbors would be unwilling to revamp their living standards.
Although I see government administration of health care not only as a cost cutter, but an egalitarian policy, most of my neighbors do not.
Free college education is a policy I accept as crucial in the new world economy. Most of my neighbors do not.
Reducing the military budget to fund infrastructure & domestic programs is something I accept. Most of my neighbors do not.
Granted, I am a rural dweller in a blue state, but where does the rest of the country stand? Can they be persuaded if not in my camp? Who is the best salesman or woman?
In the final analysis, as Democrats, we may have to protect what we still have left as a legacy of the New Deal.
2
Democrats should do well enough campaigning on a progressive agenda if they follow three guidelines:
Don't try to sell Americans on the progressive brand, but expound specific policy proposals that will benefit ordinary people and the national interest. Don't speak in leftist cant, but in the language of FDR New Deal Democrats. There's no need to use the word "progressive" at all, let alone "democratic socialist".
Remember that there's an honorable kind of moderation: the calibration of progressive plans to make them clearly feasible. At least some should be legislatively doable within, say, the first 100 days of the new presidency. For example, universal health insurance on a well-regulated multi-payer basis beats an attempt to push through Medicare for All against bipartisan opposition and popular misgivings.
Make it about Trump, too. The midterm elections saw high turnout driven by intense voter dislike of Donald Trump. Now he's becoming more reckless than ever, even firing people for refusing to break the law at his command. Democrats would be derelict not to keep attention focused on the national emergency that is Trump. The importance of getting him out of office does not obviate the need for positive proposals, but it's a political wind that must not go to waste. It can propel a progressive Democratic Party to victory, if the party offers ideas that seem worth a try to most Americans and if its candidates inspire confidence.
@Longestaffe
In other words, lie.
Be dishonest about who you really are. Its ok to support progressive issues, you just cant say it, or the American electorate will turn away.
Making such a suggestion should cause you to reflect on whether your ideology is pro American or anti-American.
If you have to be dishonest just to get elected, then go ahead with your real agenda after winning, what does that make you?
1
@Sports Medicine
I'm talking about offering progressive policies on their own terms and not as part of an ideological movement. The policy preferences are mine. The ideology is not. In making that distinction, I'm not being dishonest; nor are other Democrats who are working for real and lasting change, and not trying for a cherished dream of revolution.
some of them them are radical, and no spin can take that away.
There is sad, tragic, countless examples of Socialism failing miserably, most recently in Venezuela.
18 years from prosperity to starvation.
Bernie's and AOC's policies are strikingly similar to Hugo Chavez' and both have been vocal supporters of the socialism in Venezuela. Google Bernie and Hugo Chavez. Scary. Sad, that he deeply misunderstands economic history.
8
The bipartisan project of using our public wealth to conduct ongoing wars in seven countries and spread our military in 150 other countries while our own infrastructure crumbles and the gap between supperich and everyone else widens -- that's too radical for me.
1
The Democrats don’t realize that their pandering during the primaries are just sound bytes and fodder for the Republic to use during the general election. If the Republicans show how high taxes would need to go to support these issues they won’t have a chance to win. If the Democrats reverse or back off their positions the Republicans will just say they are hypocrites or hiding their true intentions.
Oddly the more they do to win the primaries they less likely they are to win the general election. That and a too crowded field are their main problems.
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The Democrats greatest ability.
9
@Norville T. Johnson But you are assuming that Americans have an attention span of more than one week. What matters is what the Dem candidate says after the nomination, especially during the last month and week or two before election day.
1
This is strictly a numbers game if Dems are serious about defeating Trump and the Electoral College plays a key role. The less-populated rural areas have outsize influence in determining who will be our next president. Until the Electoral College is abolished, as it should be, the Dems are the losers. A country that elected Trump is definitely not ready for a left-leaning progressive candidate and the Dems will be shooting themselves in the foot as they usually do if they put forth such a candidate. We are still witnessing the backlash against the election of an African-American president by a conservative, rural-based, less educated electorate which resulted in the election of the most corrupt president in American history - but, hey - he is white, rich and can whip the base into a frenzy of hate and outrage.
Only a young and moderate Democrat candidate would foot the bill as electable in the current climate in this country. Change has to be incremental and the Dems will scare most of the country with the ideologies of a left-leaning candidate, espousing radical changes.
2
Going from one extreme to the other is not the answer, when will people ever learn from history.
1
This go-round is very discouraging to me. The reason that the right wing won in 2016 is the Electoral College. The left has no such advantage. I feel like a traffic cop with a whistle, shouting "Stop!" to a herd of lemmings rushing past me and charging over the cliff.
4
Another way to to pose the question is who among the most vulnerable people in the society are Democrats willing to further marginalize, betray and sacrifice?
2
Something is really wrong with this country when someone like Donald Trump not only became president but doesn't have his clock cleaned in a re-election, which but for racism and sexism would have happened in 2016. That hands are wringing over whether he can be defeated is stunning. The American right wing is so corrosive right now. Get healthy, please. The country depends on it.
1
The key is to have a presidential candidate who combines a strong personality, energy (no seventy-seven year olds), a clear and concise program for change and reducing inequalty, and a campaign that is not marked b y distracting glitches and stupid Clinton 2016 mistakes, like not campaigning in Michigan or Wisconsin. Why is it such a difficult task to imagine?
3
This article is nonsense
It implies that liberal Democrats are radical when they aren’t
Republicans have moved the nation far to the right of sanity.
Just look at how the Democratic ideas poll and you’d see that they are mainstream
Most of the progressive ideas have broader support than the current gop policies which are only supported by their base
So write an article on the radical gop and how progressives are trying to turn this ship around to sanity
3
Why doesn’t the Times just come out and say they don’t want Bernie Sanders to be the nominee and be done with it ?
But I must add that it’s pretty disheartening that the GOP can run with fervor and passion in pursuit of their godawful agenda yet the Democrats are supposed to obtain clearance from their corporate sponsors and craft legislation that the GOP will allow .
Nice touch on the MedicareForAll price tag by the way . What Nancy Pelosi conveniently left out is the scary number she posts is a savings of Trillions compared to what we currently pay -that and just the small detail that millions of Americans left out along with scores of millions burdened with onerous out of pocket costs will get life changing ( and saving ) relief.
There’s nothing moderate about tolerating pain , suffering and grinding insecurity in service to monied interests and corporate profits. But apparently Americans have been so beaten down and conditioned to settle for less that abnormal has become normal -and “moderate”.
1
@Paul G Knox
So we need to spend 32 Trillion to save Trilions?
1
Most Americans, in my opinion, are rarely ideological as far as policy is concerned. I suspect that what most want is for congress and the President to shut up and govern. Electronic media are little help and rather serve as platforms for lousy ideological vaudeville. The Marx brothers were better policy makers as they worked harder at their craft. And while the current show drags on corporations and media are making out like bandits.
While there are "Supplemental Socialism" solutions ala Teddy Roosevelt and FDR to counter the "Extreme Capitalism" the now repugnant party has given us, as a Democrat, I fear that the extreme far left proposals will cost us the house majority and presidency in 2020.
2
Calling Clinton too incrementalist is a misrepresentation of what the left thinks happened in 2016. For someone standing on the left, Clinton lost because she was an unremarkable candidate with a lot of baggage who felt entitled to the nomination.
I mean she didn't even campaign in Michigan. She basically ignored anyone under 35 if she wasn't openly hostile to their participation. Bill Clinton is wandering around on tarmacs interfering with Loretta Lynch. Oh, and Hillary couldn't attack Trump for sexual misconduct because she's on record defending someone accused of sexual misconduct.
Clinton's complete and utter failure to provide a compelling platform other than "more of the same" was simply one more negative on a list so far in the red she was subterranean even before the DNC scandal.
Democrats took all the goodwill Obama had managed to salvage after Republican obstruction and burned it on Clinton. That's why the left is tired of listening to the old guard.
4
@Andy
Perfect troll talking points -- and a perfect example of what Obama meant by "circular firing squad".
Too bad this kind of tunnel vision also resulted in why we ended up with Trump.
1
That circular firing squad is forming up quite nicely. It's interesting how far-left Democrats are weaponizing the MeToo movement for use against moderates in their party. We are now equalizing criminal behavior like sexual harassment and sexual assault by people like Trump with "I felt uncomfortable" moments.
The best way for Democrats to win a presidential election, as always, is to support a center-left candidate. If you're a radical, run for the House. Several moderates are available in the current pool of candidates. And, if your favorite doesn't win the nomination, do everything you can to get that final candidate elected.
The real issues are corruption, climate change, health care, infrastructure, economic inequality, and education. If Trump is reelected, we will take major (perhaps fatal) steps back in all those areas. If you think he's nuts now, wait until he's not worried about re-election in a second term.
1
Trouble is, we won’t do much better on any of those issues with a so-called moderate-center Democrat.
If Elizabeth Warren is radical, then we obviously need radical.
If Bernie Sanders is radical, then we obviously need radical.
What’s Joe Biden going to accomplish? We gave the incrementalists a chance, and this is where they got us.
"... that policy radicalism pays off in primaries." In other words, it is a tool with which they will bang on other Democrats' heads. The fear of the proverbial circular firing squad lives! This is not a strategy to win the White House or even the Senate but just to beat other Democrats while providing ammunition to the Republicans. So long as individual priorities and strategies suppress the Democratic party priorities and strategies we are in danger. And, no, radical views will not necessarily trump Trump!
Democrats, please focus on a unified party strategy to win the Senate first. If you can throw in the White House, I will be grateful. But, do not burn us all chasing your radical ideas with no implementation strategy specified. You remember what happened in the last election, right?
1
Anyone who thinks that Americans can and should have health care on a par with other countries (even though it costs us 2X as much) is a radical. A dangerous radical. And doing something...anything to address climate change? That's just ideologically extreme!
Far better to sit back, pontificate, and expound on which team is winning/losing. You know--like watching ESPN.
1
It used to be jobs, healthcare and environment, now it's reparations, all-men-bad, Medicare for all -- or nothing. We're going to lose, get ready for it. We think they're stubborn, we are much worse.
5
What a disappointing column. Where is our courage?
Wall St -- in it's many, many disguises -- has been telling Americans "Uh, I’m sorry, this is how it’s going to be" forever.
These "moderates" are not our friends!
They will deliver us into a nightmare world, with a dying planet, a warring, starving population, a repressive police state (Republican or Democrat), complete domination of our politics by the massive corporations and the billionaires, and on & on.
Business as usual is suicidal.
1
Why is the word "radical" even a part of the conversation about what Democrats stand for?
Let's look at our current mis-Administration. Voter suppression. Dog whistles for white supremacists. Climate change deniers. Lowering taxes for corporations while raising them on individuals. Defunding public schools and the arts. Promoting Shariah Christianity. Ignoring mass shootings because it's "too early" to talk about them. Gutting the EPA. Selling national parks. Relaxing pollution and emission standards. Ridiculing our allies while waxing eloquent over strong-man dictators. Attacking our judiciary and law enforcement officials. Excluding the press from covering meetings with Russian officials. Giving Trump's children and spouses their very own offices in the White House, complete with top secret security clearances. Shutting down the government for partisan political gain. Holding private First Amendment-free rallies with taxpayer dollars to whip up the masses, by demonizing political opponents and calling for violence. Declaring a free press the enemy of the people.
THAT'S what sounds pretty radical to me. Opposing this evil is not radical. It's the life-blood of our nation, as mainstream as it gets. Let's hope the Democrats can harness the better angels of our nature and turn Cerberus and his enablers out of office next year.
1
The reason people love AOC is because she is brash, mouthy and aggressive. So yeah, I think Democrats WANT a more extreme, aggressive candidate. The problem is there is no consensus among Democrats on the ISSUES a candidate could be extreme about. For example, I wouldn't mind having a candidate who was mouthy and combative about income inequality, and women's rights, but I want a more moderate stand on immigration.
Is it possible to sound mouthy and aggressive, but hold moderate positions? Nancy Pelosi is probably right (she usually is). We should field a moderate candidate.
3
The democratic party would do well to internalize President Obama's warning about the party turning itself into a circular firing squad.
The party would also do well to remember the math of elections.
3
Oh my gawd! Democrats propose expensive new projects that actually benefit people like Medicare for All or the New Green Deal! The horror! These will be a hard sell to many Americans.
Let me tell you what has not been a hard sell to Americans: The multi-trillion dollar Republican Trump Tax cut for the 1% and gazillion dollar corporations in 2017. Most voters opposed the fiscally destructive tax cut, but who really cares? It passed anyway.
The $6 trillion dollar cost of wars since 9/11 has been an easy sell. "They are keeping us safe!" one of my conservative friends shouts. Yup, a trillion dollars here, a trillion dollars there and pretty soon we are talking real money. But we are not talking about it, which is the real problem.
I am tired of reading how radical it is to propose something good for the citizens of our distressed nation, and how incredibly easy it is to get something bad enacted by our corrupt politicians. Looking at you Mitch McConnell.
1
@Ed Madej
Looks like your one of those folks that believe it when a politician promises you something for free, its good for the citizens.
If you knew anything about healthcare delivery, you'd know that govt run healthcare would be a disaster for our healthcare system and quality of care.
It amazes me how some folks make suggestions on how to run things when they havent the slightest clue on how they work.
4
@Sports Medicine Hah! I know more than I want to about how our health insurance system (which doesn't provide good access to real health care) does not work in the United States. I would rather my tax dollars go to saving the lives of my friends and neighbors with Medicare for All rather than into the endless maw of the military industrial national security war machine.
Democrats need to be careful because if they push these absurd notions then Trump etc can simply point out the costs. Are you prepared to pay 50% more tax? Are you prepared to see crime rates soar? Are you prepared for ...? When voters see the pain being offered, not the free goodies, many will rethink their support. Then too there's the issue of division. The more radical the Democrat policy the more likely it will be see as an attack on communities within America. Can the country really afford greater divisions, naked lawfare, and worse?
2
The problem with Liberal Democrats is that they want to put the burden on individual citizens and small businesses rather than the super rich and the large corporations. "Regulation" has become a dirty word because it imposes undue burdens on people who need their valuable time to earn a living and to spend some time enjoying their lives. I could be convinced that this is a conspiracy to give regulation a bad name.
They also like to scold individuals for what they might like or dislike, prefer or not prefer, rather than corporate institutions that hold more sway over families, communities, industries, and even regions than the Federal Government ever dreamed of. Liberal Democrats seem to forget that Old Rural White Males, for example, also have rights as citizens and as human beings.
This makes sense to them because they, too, are part of the $160 TRILLION under asset management in this country. Rich Liberal Democrats have just as much stake in Corporate America as Rich Reactionary Republicans. All they want to do is change the wallpaper, not the structure underneath.
Republicans often win because they keep things practical, understandable, and simple –– "More Money & Power For the Rich!" Democrats can't even agree to LIMITATIONS on the rich and powerful, or to BETTER economic justice for workers. They think it's a great idea to make everyone use the same bathroom.
1
An excellent analysis rooted in academic study with no bias only reality taken into account. My main takeaway is that the Democrats are likely to nominate a far left maniac who wins the primaries but is trounced in general election. McGovern 2.0.
6
There are no far left candidates, stop pushing republican talking points..
Wow a rather large ,Survey says ,poll casting article on why the dems really really really need Joe Biden. Thanks for pointing that out!
Children playing dress up are more honest than this pseudo political science.
The green new deal is just something to talk about. It is not some fixed thing recently discovered by science that is at odds with climate change issues.
For example.
But children love to play and grifters love to grift. The money it turns out isn’t in the banks but in grifting politics.
2
Forget about liberal and conservative labels. There are winning arguments and losing arguments.
Being for clean air and water and against pollution is a winner.
Supporting spending for research into new treatments for diseases is a winner.
Having higher taxes for multi-millionaires and billionaires is a winner.
Being for reparations for African Americans is a loser.
Being for having both government sponsored AND private health care is a winner.
Being for improving our infrastructure is a winner.
Being for a less expensive and more efficient military is a winner.
Being against hate groups is a winner.
Having clean and carbon-free energy, such as wind, solar and nuclear power is a winner.
Allowing people to own guns but having universal background checks to purchase guns and having safety features for guns is a winner.
Having equal rights for women is a winner.
Having more control over who we let into our country but more legal immigration is a winner.
Having the government do basic scientific research but allowing and encouraging the private enterprise system to develop the products and make a profit from them is a winner.
2
Spot on, Ben
Any Democratic candidate with that platform would win.
I particularly agree with you on healthcare. Medicare for all may be an ultimate goal, but for the moment, it would be insanely expensive and would involve the immediate loss of many thousands of jobs in the insurance business. Medicare should be expanded and offered as an option to compete with the current insurers. This would automatically drive down prices. Eventually the current system might just shrivel up and die.
I believe Gillibrand, among others, is for such an option.
1
Democrats have one mission: to rid our country and the world of the corrupt and incompetent Trump GOP. That’s it. Don’t blow it. Another 4 years of their misrule will completely and irretrievably alter for the worse our country.
Stop with the divisive policies, Democrats. Let’s represent the majority. Leave extremist radicalism to Trump and his enablers.
My quandary:
Trump is clearly unqualified to lead this nation and proves it on a daily basis. I cannot vote for him.
I need a viable candidate and platform to vote for. I will not vote for a candidate because they are simply not Trump. In many ways that is how we got in this position. 2016 was as much voting for a candidate as voting against another. It has to stop.
Ever hear of the acronym KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid? KISS should be posted in every Democrat office. The goal is to win, not alienate and create even more controversy. It is very early but so far Democrats are not demonstrating they understand what it takes to win. Win by running against Trump and the Republican Party, his words, policies, lies and the complicity of his party. Make Trump a liability so Republicans question whether they can win with him. Resist proposing new policies that, quite frankly, scare the bejesus out of many Americans because they are half baked at best.
If the DFL is a moderate to conservative party then they are republicans. Time to vote for a third party.
Two issues for April 2019, some 19 months before election day: 1) Republicans are never going to cooperate in proposing or passing any law establishing policies that impact climate deterioration just as they will never vote for any reasonable regulations on guns 2) Hillary (flawed candidate, apparently, according to the media) Clinton at her campaign stops discussed sober well thought out achievable policy proposals (pre-school programs; gun safety regulations, improving the ACA, etc.) and the Beltway media covered only the FBI investigation into her e-mail server ( an issue that takes a back seat to Trump's use of an unsecured phone, Ivanka and Kushner using a private e-mail server without regard for security, Trump overriding 25 failed security clearances, Mar-A-Lago with sheets of classified documents floating in the swimming pool, Trump cavorting with Russians in our Oval Office giving them British classified info, etc.). Unless you go big (build a wall on the Sothern border - and have Mexico pay for it [because it's no fun shouting about that if you think you are paying for it]; ban all Muslims; end the ACA; and on and on), the media says you're not a 'retail' politician. Aspirational proposals such as the Green New Deal and Medicare for all start a conversation that needs to be started. People (and the media) look at Donald Trump and then call Democrats radical - also, newer younger women in Congress scare the beejezus out of the Old Guard.
“Capitalism does not permit an even flow of economic resources. With this system, a small privileged few are rich beyond conscience, and almost all others are doomed to be poor at some level. That's the way the system works. And since we know that the system will not change the rules, we are going to have to change the system.” — Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (A True Radical)
In 2020, cast a vote for the only presidential candidate who will actually change the system — Senator Bernie Sanders.
Demanding reparations from white people who had nothing to do with slavery is a guaranteed second term win for Donald Trump.
Reparations? The white voters that the Democrats most need to peel off live in the north and come from ethnic backgrounds. They are your Irish and Italian and Polish Catholics. Your Great Lakes Scandinavians and Eastern Europeans. You need to win these people in flip states.
These are also the people who are most directly affected by affirmative-action, in a negative way.
They are also people whose roots were not even in this country until after the Civil War. Think long and hard on that.
Yes, some Irish roots go back that far, but those family stories are clearly ones of deprivation and struggle. They were not slaveowners. Those Irish were largely drafted into the northern army and fought against slavery, not for it.
For the rest of them, they can clearly state that nobody in their family tree was responsible for slavery.
If you want reparations, take it up with the sons and daughters of the Confederacy. But if you think you’re going to win the presidential election by blaming ALL white people for the sins of a few, to whom they have no familial relation, you’re gonna have a bad day in November 2020.
11
Getting paid because of the color of your skin – do you really think this will result in a happy equality joy joy society? No man, it will be one short moment where a few buy Rolexes, big cars and throw huge neighborhood parties, and then the money is gone.
Erase ICE? Ok, remove the doors from your home, leave the lights on, unlock your car with the windows down, and go to sleep, tell me how that goes for you; same thing.
Green Deal? Ok, so how will you travel with no planes? Where is the money to pay those who refuse to work?
Socialism?
This is why many of us left the Democratic Party, you went all out there, and give no choice for those of us not insane but to leave you.
Appealing to a niche does not win you the election.
You are assured a 2.5% of the vote. If the GOP gets 25%, it’s a rout.
4
Here we go again from the pundits from NYT wanting status quo the demonizing the supposedly extreme left, whatever that means.
All your studies, polls, and quotes from whose/who and who know what is a bunch of propaganda to maintain status quo.
What is the center? middle? any more? Clinton moved the center to the right of the middle and gave republicans pretty much everything on their wish list except for SS and Medicare. Obama, well hope and change did not work out for ordinary Americans but the rich got richer.
The demonizing of the so called left hopefully won't float this boat in 2020. We cannot take more of the same Clinton and Obama, Pelosi and Schummer delicate balance to maintain the riches coming their way.
This cast of clowns are going to guarantee that Trump easily wins a second term.
3
The confusion amoung democrats is this.......they are, in reality.....REgressive.....not PROgressive.
All the rhetoric and political agenda salesmanship emanating from DNC candidates vying for more and more donations .... is based on ideas that were "radical"...... 50 years ago.
There seems to be little grasp amoung the DNC politicians and even less grasp amoung the population that follows them that the world has changed drastically since John Lennon made millions of dollars singing "Imagine".
1
There are probably many quiet normal people who are repelled by the Democrats for a variety of reasons. They don't have much interest in politics, but they mostly like things the way they are, and are pleased with the economy. They're opposed to illegal immigration, and think heterosexuality and being white are really quite acceptable.
They don't vote in primaries, maybe, but they will turn up on election day. They may think Trump is a complete jerk, but when they cast their vote.....
2
Proposals like amnesty for illegal immigrants, open borders, elimination of ICE and 'reparations' for blacks need to be taken off the table if the Dems want to win in 2020. Don't forget that Democratic support for the first of these ideas contributed to our defeat in 2016.
The Democratic party has been weakened by unrealistic proposals and failure to recognize crises (like illegal immigration) when they occur. It's time to tone down the faux humanitarian rhetoric.
5
After years of center to center right governing, the party is finally flirting with some long overdue Progressivism, in the spirit of the Roosevelts. Some would have us believe we had signed up to join the U.S.S.R.
The leadership of the Democratic Party resists the party's progressive wing at its peril. True leadership will find was to harness this energy and enthusiasm and use it to fuel a successful 2020.
By the way....where were all the hysterical worries as the Republican Party shifted to the far-right, lunatic fringe over the past decades? Somehow, the GOP can move further to the right than Mussolini and still be considered "conservative!"
1
In many ways the problem here is a self-serving and circuitous one -- with Donald Trump and Republicans pushing this country backwards with their conservative agenda, and left-progressive Democrats rising to meet them head-on to rectify the course.
Both sides intent on their mission.
Both sides rigid and unwilling to compromise.
And as moderate/centrist Democrats lose their voices and find no footing in the left-leaning trend, my greatest fear is that they remain on the sidelines altogether, thereby throwing their votes to Trump.
In this sense I tend to agree with Mr. Obama, preparing for the carnage of a Democratic 'circular firing squad' or four more years of the current administration.
1
As a left leaning independent, who has admittedly gone farther left in opposition to anything and everything Trump, I think it would be a mistake to nominate a radical left wing candidate. Where would that get us as a country? In my opinion it would get us one of two places. Option one, it could get us four more years of Trump, which I really doubt that this country could survive. I think that that option would lead to either him becoming a dictator (remember when he said that the idea of a President for life is interesting), or it would lead to a civil war.
Option two if the Democrats nominated someone radical would, IMO, be that person winning the election. I know how much Trump infuriates me. He does that to MANY people. What good would it do for the Democrats to nominate someone whose every action would be jeered by people on the right, as every move Trump makes is jeered by people on the left? That would just be setting up a tug of war, which could be won by different parties every four years.
I would much rather see a centrist be nominated by the Democrats. Hopefully, that person would appeal to Democrats, and people who are what the Republican Party used to be before the Tea Party and Trump. I thing that this is the only way to go forward, instead of reversing course every four years.
1
Biden and Kamala are a winning, can't miss, ticket-
with joe running for one term- with whispers about a year or
two only. Still a guy world, but changing, fast.
Kamala will serve as POTUS for 6 to 10 years.
1
I'm from the Midwest. I can tell you right now that these "radical" ideas like universal healthcare or a Green New Deal would have much better appeal than what many of the party's elites are giving them credit for. It all depends on the framing of the argument. Republicans for decades have been pushing these atrocious policies but have been able to frame them in ways that keep them getting reelected. We're not looking for moderation in the Midwest; we're looking for jobs, healthcare, and education, and the Dems still have an opportunity to reach out to us and get us on board again if they frame it correctly. Progressivism and populism are well-regarded here; we've elected Senators such as Russ Feingold, Tom Harkin, and Paul Wellstone over and over again, and they were no moderates.
2
@KC So midwesterners want to be dunned 15 Trillion to pay for something that happened 200 years before they were born?
4
@me
Which of the current candidates for the democratic nomination is running on *that* issue? Seems like I missed that...
@Boris
Many are running on this nonsense; some are for actual cash payments, some suggest tax credits.... No way is this a workable or winning idea
It is incorrect to use the term "radical" in reference to Democrats when the most progressive of them are only slightly to the left of Richard Nixon.
I believe that health care will be a defining issue in 2020. Though most general election voters do not vote on policy (they vote on the basis of their feelings toward the candidates and their social group identification) health care is different. It is personal. If the Democratic nominee threatens to take away their private health insurance, he or she will loose. But if the candidate promises to expand their options (as in the Center for American Progress Medicare for America plan) Democrats will win. Though Medicare for All may be good policy and good politics in the primary, it will lead to victory for Individual No. 1 in the general election.
Each candidate is focusing on the nomination of their party rather than be Coming president. This may lead to the reelection of Trump or Pence, depending on whether Trump is still in office.
If this is the case, we will have a Reublican for four more years. Hopefully the voters will see this and nominate a moderate candidate or the GOP will be back in the White House.
Gee whiz, the overclass, their stenographers and support staff must really feel threatened by the stirrings of a New Deal revival in the heretofore moribund Democratic Party. As the primaries near, look for the perennial advice for Democrats to move to the less threatening (to the plutocrats) *center* to intensify to a deafening crescendo. It seems to happen every four years so I'm not really going out on a limb here. Also, watch for the "but this time it is different" reoccurrence that seems to accompany the season.
2
@Steve Bruns You consider working class whites "the overclass"??
1
The goal in 2020 is to defeat Trump not win. There is a difference. Although I and many others like and want (eventually) what the new left candidates propose, that's not the goal initially. I was a 21 year old in 70. I became a Democrat although I grew up in a Rockefeller Republican household. We ended up with Nixon and then after a brief stint w Carter we had Reagan and another Republican. When we did get Clinton he was middle of the road. History does repeat itself .I want to make sure we get rid of trump and hav major change. But to get to major change of the left we first hav to get rid of trump. Will middle of the red Democrats in the midwest where I live vote for Elizabeth Warren or other new left. Your article does not make me believe we will win with that agenda. Winning is the goal. Then change
1
As was discussed in another NY Times article yesterday, the Democratic Party as a whole is more moderate/centrist that those who engage on social media. The progressive darlings in Congress who are pushing the party leftward come from heavily blue districts and have no fear of being voted out of office. That is not true of most of the Class of 2018, including all those ex-military and ex-CIA freshmen who are themselves mostly moderate.
And of course Trump will portray the entire Democratic Party as Ilhan Omar and AOC wannabes. While readers of the Times may be fans, the great majority of Democratic and independent voters are not.
The great majority of whites simply are not going to go for anyone heralding reparations. The great majority of union workers are not going to go for anyone who wants to wipe out their outstanding health insurance. The medical community (including doctors and those who work for insurance companies) are not going to go for anyone who wants to destroy their jobs (think of Hillary and her boast of laying off all those coal miners).
In a recent article in the Times, a writer commented that Americans can and will get used to the idea that they will have to wait for 9 months for some kinds of surgery, under "Medicare for All". Most Americans don't think they have to get used to that.
It is hard to believe, but if the economy stays moderately good for another year and a half, Trump will get re-elected.
7
Every policy Democrats are pushing for--Medicare for All, universal higher education, universal pre-K, parental leave laws, even reparations--have at their core the idea that these will promote Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity.
How is that radical?
Let me tell you what's too radical for 2020 Democrats:
The boastful, divisive, nigh-sociopathic and anti-Constitutional agenda and actions of one Donald J Trump.
A final point: the various thinkers are only talking about regular voters, people who go to the polls regularly. We have well over 40% of our franchise holders who do not vote for a variety of reasons, including GOP voter suppression efforts. I am not the only one who thinks that these citizens tend to skew more left than center and more center than right. If we had routine election participation in the range of 65% or more of the electorate, the GOP would probably turn into a regional and fringe party.
For decades, the GOP has run its most right-wing candidates for many offices while Democrats are always cautioned to run the centrists. Liberals are tired of this one-sided caution.
3
To all those who claim medicine for all is too expensive just look at other countries that provide quality health care for all. They do it at a fraction of their G.NP. Because they have taken the fat and excessive profits out of health care. Health care in this country has been privatized and our medical bills reflect that. For all those who say the green deal is too expensive just look at the cost of cleaning up rivers and hazardous waste sites. All paid for by tax dollars not the polluters. Pay me now or pay me later. If climate change advocates are right and future weather related disasters happen,then the cost of clean up will be far more than the cost of a green deal.
3
The labels we choose to put on ourselves and others are often arbitrary and inaccurate. I do not mind being called a liberal because I support many liberal policies, but not in the form some liberals do. I suppose I am a moderate and probably by the standards painted in Mr. Edsall's article that is closer to the truth, but that will not stop a conservative from calling me a liberal.
For thinking people the truth is often in the details. I would prefer a health care system that is a combination of Medicare and private insurance available to all, but that will not stop me from supporting someone like Bernie Sanders even though to some he would appear extreme on health care coverage. He is far closer to my point of view than any Republican will ever be and who knows what actual proposals and policies will turn out to be.
Questions of what is best is far more complicated than ideas that separate people into various camps such as liberal, moderate or conservative and doing so hinders actual discussion as people set their minds into concrete patterns before discussions really begin. Am I being wishy washy or thoughtful? That is also in the eyes of the beholder, but labels have always troubled me as they have led to the extreme partisanship that exists today.
2
Nice summary by Mr. Edsall. "Leaning left does have its risks," is a quote that is both obvious and profound.
For the staunch anti-trumpet, the more left the better -- a call for reparation payments, the abolition of ICE (a marker for opposition to any border security), and the utopian Green New Deal. I pray that the 20 or so Democrat hopefuls continue to endorse these far left proposals which do not have the support of centrist Democrats, much less independents -- Trump's 2020 romp will be all that much sweeter.
5
The essay omits two crucial factors in formulating a winning electoral approach: first, whatever happened to doing what's right? We have a pretty good grasp on what the problems are--climate, inequality, healthcare, etc. What about candidates proposing not just policies that appeal particularly to left handed albinos, but policies that would be fair and effective in dealing with the problems? That was Obama's strategy. And that leads to the second missing factor: the extremely poor nature of the political advisers leeching on Democratic candidates. It is they who come up with and push these silly extremist views, more than the candidates themselves. Democrats keep hiring the same losers over and over again. Where's a David Axelrod today?
6
Policy evaluation boils down to keeping the good and avoiding every kind of evil. Progressives and liberals see freedom as a good and wouldn’t know evil if pornography, abortion, atheism, assisted suicide, recreational drugs, reverse discrimination, polygamy, foul language, gambling, nanny taxes, or socialism bit them on the backside.
Conservatives value freedom in moderation. In fact, it is moderation that often defines the difference between good and evil. More importantly, conservatives value small government and private sector economic mobility. Conservatives believe that intelligent economic controls and better contracts can lead to smaller government, greater dynamic equality, and acceleration of technological progress.
None of the important policy issues can be fairly reduced to mass surveys and most of the reporting and opinion pieces deceptively rely on surveys. At least Thomas B. Edsall reports that a slight rewording of a question can yield quite different results.
The country needs leaders on all sides willing to be truly radical with thoughtful responses that recognize both the good and evil of new policy suggestions. Don’t trust anyone who says only the good or only the bad. They are the ones who are polarizing the political process and are too ignorant to see all sides.
5
We have problems that beg to be solved. It seems to me there is no point in an incrementalist approach to any of them. Some, like healthcare costs are long overdue for change. But, I remind my liberal Democratic friends that here in Colorado not much happened in our years of divided government. With a Democratic legislature and governor we are finally getting things done. Time will tell if those solutions are popular but nobody made any secrets of what they wanted to accomplish and the people voted them into office. Winning the Whitehouse is only a part of the solution but may drive wins in the Senate as well.
1
Democrats have to win the Senate, too, for without it a Democratic president won't get their agenda passed, and a Republican president will finish the destruction of the country I once served. Turnout matters, because if the Democrats lose in 2024, there will be enough restrictions and gerrymandering to prevent any recovery.
Small wonder I hope a come to Jesus climate moment hits this country.
2
"[Trump] won with a very right-wing policy agenda".. No, he won with a racist or rightist social agenda, but an economic agenda which at first and in some ways appeared to be to the left of Clinton. The majority of voters in the country continue to support an economic approach which is to the left of both establishment parties.
Every Democrat who believes that they can do the job of President better than other Democrats should be encouraged to run. That way new ideas will be promoted.
This is all surface opinion and focus on strategy with no in-depth analysis. What does "leftward" really mean? What defines an "ordinary" Democrat or a "radical"? Why even use the term radical? Why is believing that health care is a right, not a privilege considered "radical"? Do ordinary, incrementalist Democrats, like the ones many of the people quoted here believe that Wall Street, Big Oil, private health insurance lobbyists, military industrial complex lobbyists and other major corporate interests should continue to control foreign and domestic policy positions and legislative initiatives of key members of both parties, particularly in the Senate? Is that "ordinary" and, therefore, wise?
What we are talking about is systemic corruption in our political system and whether the Democratic party can stand against that. Or is standing against corruption so radical that it must be labeled as something else? 50% of eligible voters in this country don't bother to vote. In primaries, the number who stay home is much, much higher. Instead of trying to coddle some mythical ordinary Democrat, why not find out what those non-participants believe?
1
If reparations or any other issue that does not directly affect peoples lives in any economic sense becomes the focus of the democrats strategy, we're done for...and trump will be our president for an additional 4 years.
3
@caljn Reparations does directly affect people's lives - negatively.
1
The 2020 election for Democrats is not only about the presidency. Capturing the Senate, retaining the House and making further progress in state and local elections is also critical. While there has been much attention paid to the more diverse and progressive candidates that joined Congress, the 2018 success was built on flipping formerly safe Republican districts. Think about how Jon Tester or Doug Jones won Senate seats in solid red states, how Democrats won for Governor in Kansas, Michigan and Colorado, how Congressional districts in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Southern California were flipped.
Idealogical purity tests may help win primaries, but in the general elections and key battleground states Democrats will need the independent voters and moderate Republicans.
1
@Jim Erskine: So glad you pointed that out. Without support from Independents (who statistically outnumber both registered Democrats and Republicans) and Republicans who are disillusioned with Trump winning in 2020 will probably not be possible.
What always gets me about people who say Dems must stay in the middle to win appear to forget the lessons of recent political history.
I'm old enough to remember that after Goldwater lost in 1964 in a landslide, pretty much every expert thought that was the end of the influence of what was then the far right wing of the Republican Party. What's ironic is that the party has now moved so far to the right that Goldwater would be too moderate now to be in it (he was pro abortion rights and gay rights)
The Christian right is willing to close their eyes to the most morally flawed president in our history because he is anti-abortion (or at least he is today) and for tax cuts. It would be sad if Dems would feel trading reparation payments for better healthcare and economic fairness wasn't worth it.
Winning Twitter doesn't win the presidency.
Talk of reparations, abolishing ice, etcetera, plays well on social media, where small groups with loud voices hold sway.
Winning Americans' votes will require finding a unifying position on things most Americans care about eg healthcare costs and climate change.
5
Another excellent synthesis of the poli sci research. I believe that political scientists can offer valuable advice and insight for campaign tacticians. What they cannot provide is a strategy to address our political crisis.
For that we need a political leader with a moral vision, someone who can see the missteps that led to the current crisis and point out the path that approaches our higher ideals. We need a leader as articulate as Lincoln or Roosevelt.
When the Democrats find someone who can show us that the vision of the common good found in the Declaration of Independence still lives, they will have their candidate.
1
This particular model of labeling policy proposals (moderate to extreme) is empty and prejudices any conversation even before it begins.
It also fails to acknowledge the myriad points of view implies by a democracy. Instead of characterizing proposals like temperature, we could classify them by their approach: structuralist, analytic, positivist, absolutist, materialist, etc.
3
I always enjoy reading your work, Mr. Edsall; you bring a depth of thought and research that are refreshing. Today, however, I would like to push back against your implication that the Green New Deal is a "radical" position. Scientists have confirmed that we've got about a 10-year window to avert the most disastrous effects of climate change. Given that reality, the truly radical position is to continue our refusal to make the changes that are necessary -- not desirable, not easy, not cheap, but necessary. That non-response will lead us to a future of increasingly unstable food supplies; increasingly unpredictable supplies of water; coastal flooding (possibly severe enough to lead us to abandon many large cities); unmanageable migration, as people flee areas which are no longer suited for human habitation; and the breakdown of the ecological food-chain, with unpredictable consequences for sustainability of life. Most likely, those pressures (which are already impacting us, and will grow worse) will lead either to the breakdown of our contemporary social structures or the imposition of authoritarian rule. Under these circumstance, what might, at first, seem "radical" is, in fact, both prudent and necessary. We need to change the conversation on this before it is too late.
4
There's a lot of talk, in this article among others, about "where the energy is" among Democrats. However, people showing up at rallies and tweeting a lot may not be representative of 2020 Democratic primary voters.
7
@Baxter Jones
Shortly after I made this comment I read this NYT front page article, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/08/upshot/democratic-electorate-twitter-real-life.html
.....which makes the point thoroughly.
So don't be surprised if the nominee is Biden or Klobuchar. Others may be tripping over each other in pursuit of the most progressive voters, while the bulk of Democratic primary voters (especially independents who can vote in open primaries) may be looking for the "most likely to beat Trump" candidate.
1
I think that rather than adopt a specific policy the candidates would be better off with agreeing to the concept but showing willingness to be flexible in using different approaches towards the goal.
However the recent directive from the DCCC that any challenge in the primaries to establishment or long serving Democrats would be punished is going to hurt the party.
It is reminiscent of the way Clinton was pushed ahead of Sanders by the top brass and look where it got us.
Yes, the primaries do produce more ideological candidates but they also energize the base.
Democrats always worry about attracting the Republicans and independents and in the process alienate their own base. Have you seen any Republican candidate trying to woo Democrats?
The question is beside the point. Trump has given us so many reasons to vote against him I think he will even persuade those who don't usually vote to turn out in 2020.
1
From your keyboard to God’s inbox.
1
For decades now (ever since Reagan rose to power), the Democrats have tried to play in the centre, following the Bill Clinton model of accepting much of the Republican agenda, but trying to moderate or soften it a bit. What has been the result? A Republican party that steadily moves to the right, becomes ever more extreme—even to the point of decadence—and, most important, continues to win enough victories to advance its own increasingly radical agenda while stifling any attempt at progressive policy reform.
The Democrats may lose spectacularly by moving boldly left. Who knows? But they've been losing unspectacularly for decades. All their centrism, moderation, and incrementalism has had the effect of empowering an increasingly extreme and dangerous nationalist party—a party, which quite frankly, is destroying our democracy.
So we can try incrementalism, centrism, and moderation once again. Do the same thing and expect different results. But for me, I'm willing to bet on bold. The results can't be any worse than what we've gotten in the past. Just consider where is Merrick Garland today and where is Neil Gorsuch. That's what timid incrementalism has gotten us.
488
@617to416 Unfortunately, all the evidence in the article from political scientists contradicts your stance.
27
@617to416 Excellent response. From my perspective, most American people have suffered under this constant loss -- loss of income, loss of security, loss of opportunity, loss of political voice, frankly, loss of our nation as a place to be proud of. Incrementalism is too slow now. the losses are too great. We need rebalancing in our direction. That requires action.
36
@Tom
But then again how well did Obama do at holding the House and Senate and building majorities in state legislatures over his 8 years? And how well did that centrist Hillary Clinton do in 2016?
Maybe the political scientists are misinterpreting the data?
49
I am a Democrat.
The Democrats will set it up so they fail again.
And offering pie in the sky promises is one way to do it. Many people that vote, vote against their financial interests. College for all? Many don't value education and fail to realize how it might help them (although not all people need a good education to get ahead, granted it helps.)
In order to win this election we need a moderate.
215
@esp So FDR gave us pie in the sky, give me more.
27
@esp
Rather an extremist humbly connected to moderation. Americans like in between solutions.
5
@esp Hillary Clinton is moderate. The problem is not with Democrats "failing again". That is yet a failure of Democrats. Saying Democrats losing to Donald Trump is a Democratic failure is like saying that a person who dies from cancer is the failure, not the cancer that was the problem.
14
One dynamic which has not adequately been addressed is how people no longer interact much with others who have different political views. As a result, it is too easy to believe that your beliefs are shared by "everybody," when they in fact are not.
Democrats these days have an almost endless list of issues that matter to them, or at least to the small group of people they interact with. Republicans have one issue--keep things the same.
So, Obama is correct. Those Democrats will behave in this election as they did in the previous one where Sanders undermined Clinton so much that many of his supporters did not vote for her--evidence shows that this made the difference.
But did Democrats learn? No. They rationalize this to have been Clinton's fault, ignoring the fact that if Sanders wouldn't have gone all paranoid about the DNC she would have won.
They will do the same thing again.
The general public is not going to vote for Medicare for all, when they see the price tag. They aren't going to vote for a party that supports reparations, not when they see the price tag. They aren't going to support environmental policies because they understand that they were just a cover for socialism,when they see the price tag. etc. etc.
But Democrats will have fun along the way, and will have that smug feeling of being right. And Trump will have that smug feeling of winning again.
3
@Dan Have you noticed that none of the commenters pushing MCare for All and Reparations have mentioned the price tag or exactly how the money will be raised?
1
@me
They don't need to. Trump will do it for them.
Ever read the fable of the hedgehog and the fox? Herein lies the fundamental problem for the Dems: while the Dems are attempting to run on platforms that address many of today's challenges (i.e. universal health care, green new deal, wage equity, income disparity, racial/gender equality, pro-choice, etc.), the Republicans simply push an agenda against illegal immigration, elimination of regulations and eliminating taxes. Throw in the catalyst of abortion and, voilà, they have a simple, winning formula that appeals to a lot of people.
I believe the Dems are in a very bad spot right now and it's only going to get worse and the next election approaches.
153
@mrfreeze6
The Dems lost the last presidential election because they put forward Hillary Clinton, to which everybody saw as more of the same. They shot themselves in the foot. The Dems have electable platforms--if only they would go all in on them instead of trying to keep the corporate line.
9
@mrfreeze6
I agree with most of the first part of what you say. However, to say the Dems are in a very bad spot strikes me as wrong. Look at all the polling that shows most Americans want action on health care and climate and inequality. True, many may not want the most radical solutions to these issues, but they do want forward movement and disapprove of Congress's inaction on what matters most.
11
@dmdaisy, Thanks for the comment. Please remember that Hillary won the popular vote. She lost because of the electoral vote. This structural flaw in our election system has a tendency to neutralize the will of the people. I suspect the Republicans and Trump will target carefully the states they need to win.
9
If the 47% +/- of American households who pay no income tax all voted for a candidate who espoused "Medicare for All," and that cohort was joined by those tax-paying liberals who believe healthcare is an entitlement that is worth whatever tax increases are required, reaching a majority should be a no-brainer.
Taking an extreme position won't work for Democrats in the same way it has worked for Republicans for three reasons:
First, Americans are more right leaning than left leaning, especially in their instincts. Americans dislike being "told what to do". Actual policies aside, more Americans favor a party that promises "Freedom" than one that wants to increase both legal regulations on economic activity and cultural taboos on "Politically Incorrect" behavior.
Second, the Democratic extreme wants policies that will radically affect the lives of far more people than the GOP extreme. The majority of Americans are white, are homeowners invested more in property values than affordable rent, are workers who have insurance through their job, are well employed and don't rely on government services, are citizens who follow the law and want order in their communities. The majority would be radically, and often negatively, affective by progressive policies. Only a small number of mostly marginalized people - undocumented immigrants, the poor, people of color - are negatively affected by extreme GOP policies.
Third, the American swing voters whose votes are positioned to count most in national elections - white, middle class, moderate, suburban Midwesterners - are, for the reasons above, far more likely to hold their nose and vote for an extreme right candidate than an extreme left one, with the reasoning that bad extreme right policies don't affect them, but leftist ones will.
297
@A F
The Democrats have been losing elections by following the Republicans to the right. We may as well lose elections by changing the discourse and standing up for what is right.
91
@A F
You underestimate the situation.
For example: Even people who have health insurance via their jobs (and they are fewer and fewer) are seeing things like $10,000 deductibles, tighter networks, fewer things paid for, surprise huge bills from outside-network people at inside-network hospitals, and premiums as high as their mortgages.
And companies are increasingly avoiding taking on full timers; they want "independent contractors" so they don't have to pay benefits. And people over fifty are some of the first to be laid off and the last to find new permanent positions.
You're looking at things the way they used to be. The way they are now, particularly with medical care, is untenable.
94
@A F Much of what you say is true. However, almost everyone has experienced, or knows someone who has experienced the pain and anxiety that our current mess of a health care system gives us. If democrats would focus on fixing this, they would win (and possibly win over several generations).
39
Discussions about left and right tend to disregard how the continuum between radical left and radical right has shifted. The "center" is far to the right of where it would have been found in the past. Frances Perkins, FDR's labor secretary, wanted to include a program providing national health care along with programs like Social Security, minimum wage laws, etc. passed in the 1930s -- but that effort was killed by the medical establishment. When the political context is stripped, the majority of Americans want public policies that give all of us a measure of economic dignity: the ability to provide healthy food and adequate shelter for our families; access to healthcare that's affordable; access to high quality education; a clean environment; and jobs that provide a living wage.
210
@Another Mainer
Health care is a good example of why incremental changes won't work.
Marcia Angell, the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, commissioned articles on different approaches to health care reform, and summed them up in an editorial.
Incremental changes are doomed to fail, said Angell, because they make the system administratively more complex -- and therefore more expensive, time-consuming, and complicated, and more patients can slip through the cracks.
For example, the Obama Administration included deductibles and co-payments in the "Affordable" Care Act. Calculating these features required a huge computerized bureaucracy, which was managed by the private insurance industry, and consumed about 30 cents of every premium dollar. Doctors have to spend an additional hour a day on the computer billing system. The Affordable Health Plan is actually unaffordable for the people who need it most.
Under a UK-style health plan, these costs and complexities don't exist. The UK system costs half as much as ours, covers everyone, and its outcomes are about the same as ours.
Angell supported a single-payer system.
20
I love that line. We all want a measure of economic dignity!
10
@Another Mainer
Progressives promote a self-serving myth when they claim that the political center has moved to the right. During the Roosevelt administration an issue that might have been debated among centrists would have been whether racial segregation should continue to be legal, as it continued to be for years after in many states and in the military. Affirmative action wasn't even on the political radar screen, let alone reparations. Employment discrimination was a fact of life for women, blacks and Jews - without notable dissent from centrists. Even after the day of Frances Perkins, we weren't discussing elimination of border controls, during wartime we were interning legal residents of Japanese descent (and some of German and Italian origin too). Homosexuality was a crime.
The purported rightward movement of the electorate is a fiction.
3
For non-cult voters, by the time 2016 vote came, the election was between a new-wealth, no-brain-mouth filter, businessman promising (mostly falsely) to address the insecurity many people felt versus glib, smug, dynastic, entitled-as-a-first, baggage-laden stereotypical-lawyer-turned-politician promising no improvement for most while catering to birth-based special interest groups.
Mr. Edsall's right that the parties and their primaries have become the bastions of true-believers, which leaves people who can compromise and understand multiple viewpoints unrepresented and unwillingly choosing the least-damaging.
4
Continue ignoring climate change for another 4 years on top of the 2 we're going to lose between now and 2020 - and the left, right, center debate is irrelevant.
341
This is the most significant comment that will be made on this article. All other progressive goals are subordinate to turning the tide on climate change and the broader assault on the environment. Extreme weather, loss of crops , loss of coastlines , loss of fisheries and loss of forests, water and healthy soil will lead to mass migration far beyond what Europe and the US have recently experienced and thus to terrible wars and horrific violence. Being "woke" or being for 'Merica Great Again" won't help much in Mad Max world. The Republicans will do everything they can in the short term to stop any progress on the environment (although by or even well before the 2028 election cycle even the Republican base will probably have begun to panic but waiting until then to do something big on the climate and the environment will be too late.) Pelosi and other mainstream Dems need to quit denigrating their own Party members and start leveling with the public about how bad things are and how the price tag to try and fix things will be high but must be paid. In other words, they need to act like leaders instead of simply calculating their perennial reelection. If the Dems lose on that platform- well the people have spoken in favor of doing in the planet.
77
@JoeG
In 1989 we were told that by 2000 the seas would swallow entire cities.
Al Gore predicted that by now the seas should have risen and the planet would be unbearable.
Today I am looking at a gorgeous, cool, spring morning, am not swimming in the Hudson, and it's a perfect spring weather.
Sorry but dead by climate change was parroted to dead, and failed to happen. live with it.
7
@AutumnLeaf Sorry, I care too much about the children of the 21st century. I have too much respect for science to rely on silly anecdotes and false facts. And what you really meant to say is - Die with it. I would prefer not to.
19
I don't understand why embracing a national healthcare system is an extremist position. I don't understand why not wanting the planet to burn up is an extremist position. I don't understand why state supported day care is extremist. I don't understand why eliminating elder poverty is extremist. I don't understand that making higher education affordable and available is extremist.
For some reason, our political discourse has been allowed to be altered by the right to the point that common services provided by the entire industrialized world are thought of as being extremist here in the US.
The reason these policies are not accepted by many on the right, or even the middle, is that they are framed as being us against them. For one to gain, another must lose. That is not true. All stand to gain.
The successful Democratic candidate must sell these policies as helping all and not let the right turn progress into a zero sum game.
699
@Bruce Rozenblit
its not the policy (e.g. health care for all), its how you get there (high taxes), and what we have to give up to get there (self reliance, differentiation for efforts put forth to succeed)
40
@stan
Stan, you get what you pay for- currently if you have health insurance even through your employer, you pay a premiums, co-pays and deductibles (in some cases very high deductibles. Mine is currently $3000). I would rather pay more than likely less than that to know i don't have to worry if I lose my job, I lose my insurance. Secondly your statement about giving up self reliance. Not sure what you mean by that but just because we could have national health care, wouldn't mean i would be giving up my self reliance or freedom. It would actually give me more freedom. To know that I am covered would allow me to leave and explore possibly opening my own business or freelancing. This country has become slanted toward the rich, making the playing field more and more tilted. The effort now that it takes to remain on an even keel is much more than what our parents had to go through. The corporations and the rich now have the upper hand and this is not sustainable. It has to change.
167
@Bruce Rozenblit
To Bruce and Stan,
The real problem here is just plain lack of education, and lack of interest in education. This is how the political discourse has been monopolized by the gop a la Frank Luntz for thirty years now. People don't even know what they are talking about anymore, and it shows.
So Stan, the (high taxes) you mention and the benefits from them are a quaint notion from the distant past.
We used to have these things, and could have more, and a better society and economy, but a choice has been made.
The dire consequences of that choice is all around us, but we still pretend that a better Nation is something we "can't afford" while shoveling money upwards to those who have everything.
The fix is in and won't be dislodged easily, especially by thinking that policy selling will be noticed. Trained not to think, connecting with some voters is a real challenge.
99
The Democrats can argue all they care to in the primary, but regardless of the chosen nominee they must come together in the general election to assure Trump is defeated.
The Dems should look for a candidate with these characteristics, REGARDLESS of their policies:
Sincere interest in governing.
Intelligence, wisdom, and willingness to listen to their carefully chosen advisors and cabinet.
Careful reading of position papers, and in-depth questioning of facts and recommendations .
Appointment of competent cabinet members determined to carry out the true role of their department.
Setting a foreign policy based on the best interests of America while accepting that it requires understanding of our allies and enemies requirements.
Civil discourse with Allies , friends, enemies alike.
In other words the anti-Trump, without making the campaign anti-trump, especially not impeachment.
Policies that are correct will arise from this sort of leadership.
1
The primary season will confirm or refute what the polls and political scientists tell us so early in the game. At this point, despite my belief that, say, my senator Liz Warren would have to struggle mightily to defeat Trump and would likely lose, I am delighted to have her ideas and those other progressives defining the leftmost political margin. It’s the only way we ever change where the political center resides, and it can lead the public to a greater acceptance of ideas thought too radical to even be considered a few years earlier. Bernie Sander’s healthcare proposals are a case in point. He didn’t win the nomination but his healthcare proposal now seems much more mainstream than it did prior to the 2016 election. So, it’s also entirely possible that Elizabeth Warren will step out from behind the stick figure character with headband and feather that Republicans have drawn and connect with people across the country. If we can set labels and caricatures aside and really listen, we might all end up with better government.
1
@Bruce Rozenblit When first instituted by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, one of our greatest Presidents, Social Security was viewed by Republicans as a radical socialist and possibly communist program and they fought against it tooth and nail then, and for the next 80+ years.
Similarly, FDR's creative Civilian Conservation Corps continues to give back to Americans through our national parks, trails, stone bridges and other projects that put people to work and helped build us out of the Great Depression.
And what about the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Rural Electrification Program? Radical government-run socialism! But it brought electricity to rural and urban areas throughout the south, and the REA spread electricity throughout the country.
We can add Lyndon Johnson's Medicare to the list. The horror of allowing Americans to actually have affordable health care, heavens to Betsy! Communism, right here in America! And the life-saving, baby-saving WIC program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, food stamps - how very radical but only when defined by head-in-the-sand and very conservative Republicans who have fought all of them.
I agree with Bruce that we should not let so-called conservatives define what is radical and what isn't. We need to work for the people, all the people, all the time. So-called "moderates" and the truly radical right should not be in charge of what's radical, and what's good for Americans.
15
@Porter
Over the years since Reagan, the now repugnant party through voter suppression and gerrymandering has given us "Extreme Capitalism" which now needs to be tempered with more "Supplemental Socialism" with higher taxes on the extreme rich, a right to universal health care for all at the least in the form of improvements to the ACA and/or buy-ins to Medicare, and a solution to the student debt problem starting with allowing bankruptcy for those who qualify. It was the for-profit education colleges that induced Congress to disallow bankruptcy when so many of their unqualified students failed to complete their programs.
1
@Porter Democrats are not honest about SS. They have raided the SS Trust Fund repeatedly, starting with LBJ, and have done NOTHING to help seniors for decades. The SS COLA was first established during the Ford (GOP) Administration. Dems talk about a need for minimum wage increase, but never explain how seniors who worked for decades are supposed to live on benefits that amount to about 2$ an hour. Today's Dems are just coasting on FDR's reputation.
What Edsall omits is how far to the right the Republicans have moved since WWII. Ideas that were stadard ideas of the Democratic party, now have become far left ideas. Here is what FDR included in his 1944 State of the Union address, sometimes referenced as a Second Bill of Rights:
"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or mines of the nation.
"The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
"The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
"The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.
"The right of every family to a decent home.
"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
"The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.
"The right to a good education."
Ah, the good old days!
9
Republicans have managed to drag the political “center” so far to the right in the past 30 to 40 years, that many policies that they brand as radical socialism are historically quite mainstream. A good example is taxes. From WWII through 1963, the top tax rate on wealthy individuals was 90 to 91 percent. During that time, America saw it’s greatest economic expansion, with the rise of labor unions and the middle class. When the top tax rate was lowered to 70% during the Kennedy administration, many loopholes that allowed the wealthy to avoid paying taxes altogether were closed at the same time, actually increasing the amount of taxes paid by the top 10%. Now, taxes on the wealthy are at historical lows, and the ubiquity of loopholes make the tax rates almost irrelevant for the 1%. And proposing a return to a 70% tax rate is branded as radical socialism, when it is actually very much the middle of the road. Democrats need to keep moving left, because the center actually in that direction.
3
@Ted Lichtenheld You ignore the fact that the next presidential election will be dependent on the "swing states" again. And your arguments, while being completely rational, are not going to sway the conservatives in those states.
Too many numbers here that may not mean much in two years. We have yet to see all of the things coming at us.
The questions are all good ones, but there are so many.
But, at the risk of seeming inadequate or appeasing,
persistent practical moderation on these issues is a good thing.
Reparations...
will we pay reparations to Native Americans too?
immigration...
the future, with so much pressure on resources and production, water and food, climate change will turn up the heat, and the lines will only get longer...
higher education....
why free? why not just very affordable?
increased funding to state colleges and universities, with student loans if needed very cheap, low interest...
medicare for all...
we paid for it and everybody should, and why not leave the insurance industry functioning for supplemental policies?
the Green New Deal...
it will look a whole lot better after a few more disasters,
but we don't need to tangle climate change initiatives with middle-class inequality and fairness concerns.
But we should all be able to get behind legislation like that proposed by Senator Warren on corruption in government.
radical, moderate or conservative
3
Why can't people multiple?
Pelosi says Medicare for All has a $30 trillion price tag. She means that some have estimated its cost OVER TEN YEARS to be $30 trillion.
Well, according to the CBP, we paid $3.5 trillion for health care last year. Making the ridiculously conservative assumption that costs will not rise a penny over the next ten years. a simple multiplication say we will pay $35 trillion in ten years with our present system.
Please Nancy P, tell me why paying $5 trillion LESS for health for everyone is a bad idea.
5
@Len Charlap
It’s not quite that simple. Beyond the $30 Billion the proposal changes who pays what for a large percentage of the US.
Those with tax free employer provided insurance (50%) presumably trade tax free health insurance for TAXABLE income and higher taxes.
The ~ 50% who actually pay federal income tax pay for everyone’s health insurance.
1
@Robert Broun - If you look at ALL taxes, the lowest quintile pays about the same percentage of their income as the top one.
And let me ask you, how have the people you say will pay for everyone's health insurance done in the past few decades? Why, they have taken a higher and higher percentage of the country's wealth and income. It time they gave some of it back.
And the growing inequality we are suffering from is bad for the economy, because wealthier people spend less of their more snd speculate more with it.
2
@Len Charlap
I’m not arguing income inequality, I’m suggesting political reality. The $30 Trillion doesn’t just hit the 1%, it hits all those who pay federal income taxes. That’s a lot of people and they are people who vote.
An example is the Union Member who has great employer provided health insurance. That person will trade $10,000 worth of tax free health insurance for $10,000 of taxable income. That taxable income will be subject to social security and Federal Income Taxes. Their Federal Tax Rate has to increase to pay for the new system. It’s math.
1
The difference between a dog and a man when you are pointing to something is that a man will look at what you are pointing to, while a dog will look at what is in your hand.
Democrats should be imitating the dog.
This is no time for them to be concerning themselves with peripheral issues, e.g., their policy differences, his business dealings, his tweets, the Wall, the Southern border, immigration policy, the rash of firings at Homeland Security, his tax returns, his appointments to the Federal Reserve Board, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
Trump's single, unrelenting, stomach-churning fear now is his impeachment. Everything else he is pointing us to is merely diversion.
Impeachment is what Democrats must be focusing on now to the exclusion of everything else with powerful magnifying glasses, microscopes and lasers.
During his impeachment, everything can be attended to or set aside for consideration later
Without it, nothing can.
3
Mr. Edsall forgot another Democratic Party goal - "criminal justice reform", which appears to be code for "just let all violent predators out of prison so they can have free rein to do what they want" or "Let's make sure there are no safe neighborhoods anywhere in the US."
3
So, clearly, polling is the problem. Trying to discern, actually guessing what people think and, further, how they might act, is what appears to be the actual problem.
3
Medicare for all? This should have been started years ago by gradually lowering the age of eligibility, including more services, and controlling how much is paid. Healthcare and pharma should not be in the private, profit-driven sector.
Elimination of ICE? Probably not. Before there was ICE, there was INS. I can remember "raids" at local poultry processors around here; unfortunately the employers never seemed to be prosecuted, just the poor employees trying to make a living at jobs no one else wanted.
Reparations? Really? After 50+ years of affirmative action? No way. All that would do is rile up the white folk against it and create more resentment among the MAGA crowd. Those are people that need to be listened to, understood, and educated; not treated as subhuman propaganda fodder.
Green new deal? As a statement and goal: yes! But I have yet to see any life-cycle costing of specific proposals. Don't think I have seen any specific proposals at all.
Other than reparations, I don't see anything wrong with embracing the progressive planks. We have to move this country forward and overcome the oligarchy that Trump and his minions are building. I don't believe that can be done by mincing words.
I hope that those who embrace these principles are as dedicated to them as Bernie Sanders, and not simply mouthing the words to get a political advantage. He may be too old for some, but there is no questioning his honesty.
7
In my view, Obama has no voice in this argument. He was elected to be a leader for change, and was indeed elected largely because of that word. If he wasn't a modern day Trojan Horse, he was the closest thing to it I can think of.
Instead of capitalizing on his victory to actually implement the change he had campaigned on, he deliberately restored the totally corrupt status quo ante, bailing out Wall Street at the expense of Main Street to do it. The "change" he had led us all to "hope" for went right out the window.
Obama propped Wall Street up, and now Wall Street is returning the favor with $400K speeches. Let him enjoy his wealth and hobnob with the rest of the oligarchs. But let him stay out of Democratic politics. He's done enough damage to the party already.
7
It's all about how these policy issues will be received in PA, WI and MI. Those states represent the Democrats optimal (and possibly only) path to victory. Period.
Quoting national receptivity to progressive Democrat ideas is borderline irrelevant if the focus is on an Electoral College victory in 2020. The receptivity to those ideas in PA, Wi and MI? Now that's worth writing about!
6
The difference between a dog and a man when you are pointing to something is that a man will look at what you are pointing to, while a dog will look at what is in your hand.
Democrats should be imitating the dog.
This is no time for them to be concerning themselves with peripheral issues, e.g., his business dealings, his tweets, the Wall, the Southern border, immigration policy, the rash of firings at Homeland Security, his tax returns, his appointments to the Federal Reserve Board, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
Trump's single, unrelenting, stomach-churning fear now is his impeachment. Everything else he is pointing us to is merely diversion.
Impeachment is what Democrats must be focusing on now to the exclusion of everything else with powerful magnifying glasses, microscopes and lasers.
During his impeachment, everything can be attended to or set aside for consideration later
Without it, nothing can.
2
@A. Stanton, they already mimic dogs in so many ways. Pavlovian response to free handouts without thinking of consequences or bigger picture. so sad.
nice analogy, thanks for bringing it up!
1
... e.g., their policy differences, his business dealings ....
When it come to reparations, an acceptable approach would be to take what is asked for and put into education, K-college, where it is underfunded. Education is the only way to level the playing field.
3
@Oyster Creek - We spend more on K-12 education than any other country in the world. Our K-12 teachers have the highest salaries of any teachers in the world.
Is education for poor areas underfunded? In Newark they spend $23,000 per student, in Washington DC they spend $28,000. That is much more than any 'rich suburb'.
3
It is not radical for people to want health care for all; all other advanced nations have it. It is not extreme to do something about global warming. And cheap and available college education is something even we used to have.
It's only decades of Republican misinformation and warped values that say so. They've made it seem normal not to care about our real wealth—human beings.
11
Extremists have won gerrymandered Republican primaries since Obama won the presidency.
Their policies on health insurance, women's reproductive rights, race, immigration and climate change are all looked upon with disfavor by a majority of voters. Yet for years they controlled both houses of Congress and now the presidency..
Social Security and Medicare were both considered radical and extreme when they were first proposed.
There are far too many Democratic candidates with policies from the middle to the far left to paint them all with the same broad brush.
In political time the IA caucuses are centuries away. Relax and let the primaries play out.
Through out history much of what was once thought as radical became mainstream. Medicare for all is really quality health care for all. The green deal is really how do we humans treat the earth. They are only radical because opponents call them so.
4
@Vincent
No, they're radical because they're radically expensive with no coherent funding proposals that even come close to the price tag.
14
@asdfj - Piece of cake - a new 35% tax on all salaries to pay for Medicare for all, plus another 5% to pay for free college for all.
2
@asdfj - No there are plenty of proposals on how to pay for them, only you are too lazy o look them up. For example, Medicare for all. Even the highest estimate of its 10 year costs (from the Koch funded Mercatus Center) at $32.6 trillion is less than 10 times what we paid for health care last year (3.5 trillion) under our present system. And you know that costs will RISE under our present system making the actual 10 year cost much higher than $35 trillion.
As for reparations, how many people of color are going to trust the government with their dna? Depending on the cost, I’m willing to bet the US would be willing to pay billions for the data. Same for everyone else too. As crime evidence, a dna data base would be an extremely valuable, cost justified program.
2
Democrats need to stop worrying about polls. Just come up with a decisive plan for change and run with it. If they waffle or try to moderate they will lose. The electorate wants change and giving them more of the same is a sure recipe for another embarrassing loss.
41
@Typical Ohio Liberal
What changes do you want? Higher taxes, higher immigration, higher unemployment, fewer manufacturing jobs, or, more likely, more free stuff. Liberals are content with anybody but Trump, and lots of free stuff, but too cowardly to say it.
Without a vision the Democrats will continue to allow the Right and the Money to define them.
"Weak on national defense" all of the Democratic senators eyeing a run for the White House, supported the Iraq War Resolution. Blind "bipartisanship" was their shield against "weak". There are no acceptable apologies for this. In a just world, Biden would not even be thinking of running again.
In his run for reelection in 2012, Obama supported an "all of the above" energy policy. His administration essentially gave a green light to oil and gas pipelines all over the US. The XL pipeline was the Democrat's token and symbolic red line, providing cover for many other pipeline developments freed from rigorous environmental review. The weakening of environmental regulation preceded Trump.
So, now, the "moderate" Democrats are running scared of the Green New Deal, allowing the climate denialists and fossil lobby to define the resolution as socialism and the costs as unfathomable.
This is not leadership. Leaders develop visions and narrative. Leaders do not allow technocracy to set the limits. Leaders do not hide the truth of the limits of the earth. Leaders develop visions of better living within limits.
Seeking the middle in this insanity of putting the future of the earth on this left/right political spectrum is not leadership. It is only following the same tired path of technocracy of letting the machine built on fossil win.
2
Getting any of these "progressive" Democratic ideas over the goal line depends on how effectively the arguments are framed.
The Dems have often had a difficult time of marketing their ideas because they have difficulty generating a succinct bumper sticker term or phrase ("death tax", "Make American Great Again", etc.) that distills the electorate's complaints/aspirations into a salable message that resonates and becomes a rallying cry.
Trump has been quoted as asking, when feeling vulnerable, where is his Roy Cohn. Democrats have to ask where they can find their equivalent of the Republicans' focus group whiz Frank Luntz and finally come up with "The Phrase that Pays".
5
A few days ago, Munich Re, one of the world's largest reinsurance firms, warned that the increasing danger from wildfires caused by climate change could make property insurance unaffordable in threatened areas. No one invests in, or offers mortgages for, uninsurable properties.
https://www.reinsurancene.ws/wildfire-premiums-could-become-a-social-issue-munich-re-climatologist/
A column in today's NYT discusses the increasing cost of insulin in the US, especially in contrast to prices in Canada and Europe, and the terrible effect that those high prices have on diabetics.
This is the real world. Policies that confront climate change and lack of medical coverage aren't pie-in-the-sky idealism. The cost of not facing up to them is to accept an increasingly unlivable environment. and allow millions to face suffer the effects of doing without medical care. Discussing the costs of solving problems without calculating the cost of not solving them is irresponsible and unrealistic. Discussing the costs without making reference to potential savings, such as no longer paying private coverage premiums, is irresponsible and unrealistic.
If facing reality is politically unpopular, it's not the job of Democrats to join Republicans in their world of the imagination, where the free market fixes everything. It's to campaign to educate Americans as to what is actually happening and what must be done.
Even in the era of Trump, reality is powerful ally.
11
@writeon1
Reality is what people believe is true. Your assumption that you represent reality, and you can educate people to believe your assumptions are fact is funny. Most successful politicians campaign so people with an 8th grade intelligence can understand. Why don’t you try to convince a few intelligent people your reality before risking the country’s future on it?
Democrats should have one focus, one goal: to win. Win the Senate, keep the House, and win the WH in 2020.
Winning is enough - even with moderate candidates. look at all that can be done through the courts, through administrative regulations if Dems have the WH and the Senate. We need to do undue all the damage from McConnell and Trump, as well as positive reforms.
Democrats must nominate a more moderate candidate - anyone in the party is left of Trump. Democrats will not win if they keep moving to the left. They will not win if they support left candidates. Democrats like Warren and Sanders are too far to the left - embracing every idealist (and often misguided) idea put forth by a vocal minority. OAC and her colleagues on a path of destroying the Party, and leading America down a path of no return.
6
@BMD
Youve got over 15 candidates.
Which ones would you suggest?
1
"In four states, African-Americans cast the majority of votes: 71 percent in Mississippi, 61 percent in South Carolina, 54 percent in Alabama and 51 percent in Georgia."
One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Hillary Clinton became the Democratic nominee largely on the basis of carrying primaries in the Deep South. It's been fifty years since Democrats carried the Deep South in a presidential election, so why let primary voters there decide who will be the nominee? Similarly, when is the last time that Democrats lost NY or California, so why give them an out-sized share of convention delegates? It's the states that are genuinely in play that should play the deciding role in who the nominee will be. To do anything less than that is to pander to ideological purity at the cost of actually winning elections in November.
16
Here is the corporate media meta narrative distilled to its essence: the Republican Party must always do what its base wants; the Democratic Party must never do what it’s base wants.
12
Immigration is a hot-button topic. Here in Arizona, Joe Arpaio won reelection many times by being tough on illegal immigrants, including using profiling techniques. He made voters feel safe, despite his lunatic behavior in so many areas (e.g., rancid bologna and tent cities, but also many inmate deaths from abuse in his jails).
Democrats should not think that they can get away with being soft on borders. And on a related note, they need to embrace capitalism: it is not going away anytime soon.
Democrats should run on the central issue of health care. Trump and his GOP have completely abdicated responsibility on that issue, so it is wide open. They should push government-sponsored health insurance tied to the individual, not the employer. All workers will then be granted far greater job flexibility and mobility. Young workers will like that a lot. And older workers will not have a sword hanging over their heads of being potential medical liabilities if hired.
What should Democrats do with all the votes they will then receive? They should work on a rather unpopular topic: climate change. That involves pain. They should campaign on it, but health care needs to be front and center.
Democrats should play up individual health insurance that will lead employers to provider better jobs, without scaring voters that they will lose their existing benefits. Then they can work on painful issues like climate change after they get elected. That is the rational way to go.
24
Tom, glad that you brought up the polling number on reparations.
Even if we captured the Senate and Presidency in 2020, moving forward on any sort of cash-based financial reparations for slavery / discrimination in the next Congress would surely lead to an electoral disaster in 2022.
The voters who have swung to our side since Trump's election have not done so so that the Democrats can pursue this kind of extraordinarily controversial policy.
In fact, IMHO, the reparations issue merely plays right into the teeth of the Southern strategy - rather than disarming it.
So how radical is too radical? IMHO, any policy that does not instill a sense of economic and cultural solidarity between Americans is too radical.
The American electorate only put Democrats back into control of the House of Representatives in November 2018 due to its extreme revulsion with the policies and presidency of Donald Trump. But that electorate could easily swing in the other direction the moment we imagine that we have a mandate to indulge political fantasies.
The best way to improve the economic lot of African Americans in 2020 and beyond will be to lift them up as part of a colorblind strategy of meaningful, broad-based, grassroots, economic empowerment. This program can include more equitable ways of financing locals schools, expanded access to free or affordable higher education, universal healthcare, etc.
Democrats forget how they regained control of the House at their peril.
100
@Matthew Carnicelli
You are giving us Bernie's position on the issue. Economic opportunity through free public education, job training and retraining where needed, colorblind hiring practices, and revitalizing unions can bring lasting change. Cash reparations will vanish quickly in its affects. It feels good, but it does not fundamentally change the playing field and that is what is necessary.
7
@Matthew Carnicelli Agree about reparations, how about reparations for the truly Americans, the indians?
Our past is dark but we have to learn and that means give everyone equal opportunity, equal justice, equal rights to walk down the street and feel safe. Equal pay and equal opportunity.
5
@Matthew Carnicelli
This is a perfect distillation of what the Democrats need to realize:
"... any policy that does not instill a sense of economic and cultural solidarity between Americans is too radical."
Don't Democrats, and liberals in general, get it? They won the culture a long time ago. It's all over but the shoutin'. Take Yes for an answer!
Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. are not gone - they are, alas, part of the human condition. But as major controlling forces in people's lives they are becoming anachronisms.
If you want to lift up the average person of color, woman, LGBTQ person, immigrant, etc., then bind people around a common, national identity and their shared, common economic fortune. Democrats would not only get the benefit of winning elections again, but actually helping bind the unnecessary wounds of the country!
6
For POTUS, doesn't it really only matter to Dems that they be sure and pick a candidate who can win the extra 80,000 votes in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania that were lacking in '16 ? Hard to see that any state which went Dem in '16 is in danger of going red in '20.
And part of the equation is making sure Dems pick a candidate who can't be assailed on normal POTUS fundamentals such as 'lack of foreign policy experience'.
The point is emphasized by the quote from Gary Jacobson:
“leaning left does carry risks; there are not enough liberals (or progressives, if you prefer) to form a majority nationally or in the Electoral College.”
At the same time, Dems on a national basis have to be careful they do not wound the 40 Dems in districts where GOP'er seats were flipped in '18.
As well, with 22 GOP'er Senators up for election and a much smaller number of Dems, the Dems should be playing very aggressive offense in the Senate, trying to flip it based on abysmal GOP'er acquiescence to Bye Felicia 45*.
Dems have opportunities if we don't fall into the trap of pretending the political leanings of the 2 coastal media centers are what will win our needed extra 80,000 votes in the Midwest, and the Legislatures.
17
Swing states won't go for these ideas. Trump will win again and he has radicals like AOC to thank.
49
@Not 99pct. AOC is radical...Trump is not. Like I said, we have a serious problem within the American electorate. Radical is wanting to address the serious, serious issue of climate change; not radical is a president who lies an average of 12 times a day, over 9000 times since he became president, a corrupt president who believes the DOJ is there to protect him from getting snagged for his own corrupt and criminal behavior;; a president who, among other childish namecalling called the head of the SS " Dumbo" because of his ears; a president who wants to take health insurance away from tens of millions of Americans just because it has Obama's name attached to it....Perhaps it depends on one's definition of "radical", but Americans are drowning in their own stupidity.
8
@Not 99pct. "Radical" = woman with strong opinions and a voice.
4
@Virginia No. Radical = unrealistic scientifically impossible goals with no idea of how much it would cost. The GND would bankrupt the country before it even can be called socialist.
2
What makes this more complicated is that some candidates like most voters are in different places on the ideological spectrum depending on the issue. Bernie Sanders for example is a proud Democratic Socialist and the prime mover on Medicare For All but he’s quite moderate on immigration and is clearly not a big fan of reparations an issue popular with African-Americans but decidedly less popular with other ethnic groups that a candidate will need to win the general election.
It seems to me that the right approach would be to present a strong platform of policies which appeal to the overwhelming majority of Americans i.e. people who work for a living and
I want to leave a better country and planet for their children and to address the concerns of the various identity groups without pandering.
Whether that approach will get a candidate through the mine fields of a Democratic primary remains to be seen.
5
Nothing new here. If you lived during the 60's, the same conclusions were tossed out to Dr. King, often under the advice of going slow. Bobby Kennedy was advised that pulling out of Vietnam was like walking on hot coals for a candidate. Read any good book about FDR's first term and marvel at the opposition to Social Security.
Today's radicals are tomorrow's mainstream moderates. The Republicans will oppose anything progressive, so what is there to lose by advocating reforms that serve the common good?
Need another example? Review the opposition to women's suffrage.
15
@Doc How does taking money from working class whites to give to African Americans help those working class whites? How does eliminating private health insurance help people who work for private insurance companies, or seniors who rely on Medigap policies to pay their Medicare deductibles?
13
@me That's not the way any of that will happen. Reparations would never be done by a cash payout, more like investment in underserved areas, via education, small business loans targeted to expand opportunity in said areas, healthcare and why don't we start with voting rights being protected again. If Medicare for all were passed, which it won't this or next cycle on the federal level, it would cover everything so no need for medigap. I think a public option on the exchanges will be the first step. Too many people like their existing policies. I do think we need to get the profit motive out of insuring people though....
4
@Kelle Re "reparations". I'm pretty sure those wanting reparations want a cash payout - a big one - not more programs.
Whichever democratic candidate can form a coalition encompassing both left leaning and moderate wings of the party. . .will win the day. FDR showed that it could be done.
My fear (as Mr. Edsall's observational study suggests) is that we might have a repeat of 1972 if the convention nominates a candidate that appeals more to the primary voter as opposed to the general election voter.
9
Environmental action may or may not be "extreme" but it is absolutely necessary. Within a generation crop yields are set to fall dramatically (even with new genetic tech - our soils are disappearing, as are pollinators, and shifting climate brings floods and droughts). The longer we wait before taking action means that the action required will have to be more and more extreme...
It hardly needs saying that the first hint of a threat to food security will have enormous economic consequences.
2
@Nullius I expect Brits to not react to sensationalized news "stories" with wild-eyed panic. In what few visits I have made to England.....England has never looked more diverse, more environmentally sound, more prosperous, more everything good that the so-called "radicals" advocate (and then out of the next breath, condemn Britain for "not having").
You have been deluded.
I am a lifelong, progressive Democrat. I support reparations. But now is definitely not the time to open the conversation. It can only serve to hand 2020 to the Republicans on a silver platter. African-Americans have waited 400 years for this issue to be addressed. I think it best if they have to wait another 19 months.
9
@thebigmancat
Trickle down socialism?
1
@thebigmancat
Which African Americans waited four hundred years?
There isnt a single person alive today that either was a slave owner, or was a slave.
I had nothing to do with slavery. Why should I have to pay? Because Im white?
Many blacks actually were part of the slave trade. How do we separate them? There are many black folks that live in America whose families didnt come from Africa. They come from Jamaica, Haiti, and other Islands. Do they get these payments, or not? How could we separate them?
Once you spend maybe 3 minutes thinking about this, its wildly ridiculous.
As a Republican though, I support Democrats making an issue out of this 100%.
5
The 1% call these issues extreme because they don’t make the 1% richer.
56
Democratic primaries have not produced far left candidates. Barack Obama was not far left and neither was Hilary Clinton. Trump is president today because too many people voted for the Green party in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Green party votes in those states plus Clinton's votes would have put her in the White House.
Most Democratic voters want to defeat Trump more than they want any policy position. So, I do not expect some version of far left extreme to win. Bernie Sanders may have a large donor base and much money, but if history is any guide, he will not get the support of older African-American voters. This means he cannot win in the South.
California is early this cycle, it is unclear what this will mean for the field. With the exception of Sanders, far left candidates have not gained much traction so far.
Finally, elections ought to be a moment when we have a national conversation that will educate voters. This is the time to talk about how much money the U.S. spends on healthcare for some of the poorest outcomes in the world. This is true for other issues as well.
12
Sanders's running again all but assures Trump a second term. Sanders himself cannot beat Trump in the current environment, and we've seen that the Sanders base is an obstinate and cult-like as Trump's base, which means that, if Sanders doesn't get the nomination, many of his base will stay home, pouting and probably accusing the DNC again, falsely (again, shades of Trumpian culture) and voila, welcome four more years of America devolving into a banana republic and becoming Trumpland.
25
As always, Edsall offers good food for thought on the policy positions of the Democrats. But if we've learned anything in the Trump era, it's that policy positions aren't terribly important during campaigns. Bernie voters were rejecting Hillary as a person (and all that she represented) - just as GOP voters rejected Jeb Bush as an individual (and all his baggage).
This article ignores gender and turnout, which I think will be and will be the stories the 2020 election. Yes, Black people are a majority of the primary vote in key states. But Black men vote differently: more conservatively and less frequently than Black women. Black women have always been a pivotal constituency for Black women, but this year is different, with Stacy Abrams and Kamala Harris at the fore.
And turnout: I predict that a sizeable number of GOP voters will stay home. Moderate Republicans in the upper midwest and Florida, who held their noses and voted for Trump in 2016, will decline to vote in 2020.
This campaign will be a contest for the souls of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Policy positions are not going to drive turnout on either side. Organizing key constituencies, and motivating them to vote, is the key issue here.
6
@Cousy
Sorry, quite wrong.
If Trump didnt make an issue out of immigration, would he have won?
3
@Cousy - Some black men are not too unhappy with Trump. If they're not college graduates, they don't like illegal immigration because it limits their job opportunities.
1
My circle includes Republican businesspeople who were shaken by Trump's election. I think they're open to voting for a Democrat, but as the primary campaign has started to take shape, they've grown more resigned to a second Trump term.
They don't like Trump, but they don't hate what he's doing. There's no way they're voting for a socialist, or someone who supports reparations for slavery.
The Democratic strategy of staking out far-left positions to win the primary and then relying on anti-Trump sentiment to win the general will fail spectacularly, I have no doubt.
Let the progressive program build support by electing far left representatives in safe districts, EXPLAIN that this is the strategy so the activist wing of the party stays on board for the Presidential election, and then nominate a moderate for President. Learn the lesson of the 2016 midterms.
21
@Patrick - Hopefully, your comment is a NYT pick; the way for Dems to get the 80,000 votes in '20 which were lacking in '16 from Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, will not be from a 'more cowbell, more cowbell' chant.
Unless George Soros and Tom Steyer are going to move 100,000 Dems to these 3 states in time for them to become eligible to vote, Dems have to work with the electorate that currently exists in these states (as well as others) instead of the electorate we wish existed.
Plus supporting Obama and Eric Holder in the fight to end egregious GOP'er gerrymandering:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/obamas-political-group-shifts-focus-gerrymandering/578770/
1
Patrick,
I agree. Even though Trump has possibly damaged our country beyond repair, it has been gradual. Even though the outrage is consistent, the economy is doing well. He hasn’t provoked war with North Korea—a low bar but a real fear in 2016. And he’s electing reliably business friendly judges to the courts and passed a tax law that moderate Republicans probably favor. Republicans and conservatives who didn’t vote for him in 2016 will be more amenable to him in 2020, and he clearly isn’t losing support from the people who DID elect him.
Democrats can’t count on Trump backlash.
Some of these conclusions are nonsense really. We've had competitive elections for a couple hundred years. In that time we've had eras where extremism and polarity was the rule of the day and periods where more moderation was the rule of the day. This is driven ultimately by the attitudes of the populace. If you want more moderation, you need to convince enough of you fellow citizens in both parties that this is what they should vote for. People get tired of extremism (or it blows things up in unpleasant ways), so this cycle will certainly repeat.
4
A country with an extreme-right and a center-left isn't a balanced country. Even if the Dems lose in 2020 the push to the left isn't a reaction to 2016 it's what younger generations want. Younger Gen Xers were too small a group to make much difference, but subsequent groups are much larger and more progressive.
2
My fear is that many of those issues that have become "litmus tests" for the left: Medicare for all, Abolish ICE, Green New Deal, are complete non starters for the middle. The whole coalition falls apart. There is no central theme that will satisfy enough people to win a national election,
Especially given the reality of the electoral College. And Four More Years.
Republicans don't have this problem. They are much more homogeneous. They will also over look some flaws to get the one thing they want, be it pro life judges or big tax cuts for the top.
9
The Green New Deal and Medicare For All are not difficult. Democrats should hold hearings on costs and benefits and only adopt a plan if it is clearly demonstrated that the nation can afford it.
2
Democrats need to frame to position decades-old positions ("Medicare for all") as common sense and overdue. Because that's what they are by any reasonable measure (American history -- the rest of the world).
10
"Leadership" is playing a dangerous game. Offering an array of colors and flavors, seemingly catering to just about every palate. From within a manufactured slate, offer everything. Put them all on the table. Make it appear open and transparent. Invite big, bold, and progressive, as though all voices are represented in the various primary options. In reality, they're trying to drive consensus around one candidate and a small slate of unifying issues, something they weren't able to do in 2016, because they couldn't unite after the convention once it was clear there was no consensus or transparency. It's a manipulative strategy. Making it seem like democrats have a choice, as though they did choose, but it will backfire. Because the Choice candidate, isn't really a choice at all.
The other day, Mr. Obama made a statement, in sum and substance, that Dems should be careful not to burn their own from within. I took this comment to heart, deeply. I also noted that no one in the media called it out for what it sounded like, a threat. Had Mr. Trump made a similar comment, the media might have tried to infer Mr. Trump was warning party critics to fall in line, or else. I heard Mr. Obama the same way. The Democratic party establishment has become its own dangerous silo. The data offered here, Mr. Obama's insidious statements, the warned fall of the great White hopes they continue to advance, its all intended to scare Progressives into consensus, unity around a lesser of evils.
There is no middle of the road candidate for the Democrats, in their mind, the more left the better .
And overall, that’s fine with me because a radical left-wing Democrats cannot be Trump, not right now.
Conservatives vote Republican many middle of the road voters want to vote left but wont, all the young people that would vote left don’t vote at all ...
2
The leftmost presidential candidate was McGovern, that didn't go well.
Pragmatic, compassionate, sensible, non-ideological will win,
Non-activists are not going to show up on Twitter or in primaries.
16
@br: I'm old enough to remember the McGovern campaign, and he was a New Deal Democrat and a World War II combat veteran, a real straight arrow in his personal life.
However, he was popular with young people who opposed the Vietnam War, and the news media invariably portrayed him as surrounded by college students. At a time when many of the World War II generation were still trying to process the fact that their sons had long hair and their daughters were living with their boyfriends, these portrayals made McGovern look like "the hippie candidate."
At the same time, Nixon was a comforting figure to the World War II generation, Eisenhower's vice-president, a symbol of what that generation saw as "the good old days," before the black militancy and the sexual revolution.
I doubt that many of the people who voted against McGovern could have even said which of his policies they disliked. They just didn't want to vote for anyone "those hippies" liked.
3
Yesterday's article by Charles Blow underscored the reality that Mr. Trump is a bona fide folk hero and, as such, he cannot be beaten by analytics.
At this juncture, the only Democratic candidate who ignores analytics is the Democratic Socialist from Vermont... and in doing so Bernie Sanders continues to generate enthusiasm from those who are looking for a folk hero of their own. Like the POTUS, Bernie Sanders holds fast to views that his party sees as "extreme" but they are views that more and more younger members of the party find appealing. Had the DNC not anointed a candidate in 2016 their primary might have resembled the GOPs and a "fringe" candidate like Bernie might have emerged.
One factor I fear the Democrats are overlooking is that the some members of the old guard of the GOP might become interested in displacing their incumbent if William Weld gets a substantial minority of votes in the NH primary. While pundits focus on the infighting of the Democratic candidates and the endless barrage of nonsensical tweets from the White House it is not inconceivable that they might find themselves running against someone like Mitt Romney instead of Donald Trump.
4
Mr. Edsall’s columns are undoubtedly some of the best researched, thoughtful and clear presentations of the American political landscape in the public domain. This one is among his best.
Mr. Trump’s success has been to make large numbers of White Americans think of themselves as a bloc and vote accordingly. While Whites have been a majority in America almost since its creation, they haven’t thought of themselves as a group, or at least not one whose Whiteness is their primary defining characteristic. Black Americans, about 15% of the population, have voted as a bloc for decades now, which has been a great political strategy. They constitute a large enough group to hold a decisive voice in key battleground electoral districts. Mr. Trump has succeeded in making large numbers of Whites think of their Whiteness as their primary defining feature and vote as a bloc as well. As Whites are ~75% of the population, a White voting bloc has formidable power.
Mr. Edsall points to another interesting point, one that he has identified in prior columns. White highly partisan Democrats are even more sensitive to racial discrimination than Blacks and Latinos. Effectively, such Whites are voting against their self interest by ceding political primacy to minority groups. That was fine when White Democratic leaders could mouth the words while retaining power. But now they are being challenged and replaced. Will these “woke” Whites remain supportive when they lose their primacy? I think not.
6
@Shiv don't you think the left's constant use of the term "white privilege" as a derogatory term has also played a large role in the potential of a formation of a white voting bloc? They are playing right into Trump's hands by vilifying an entire race based on skin color.
2
Democrats have proven (since the swing to the positions of the DLC / Democratic Leadership Council in the 80's) that many ideas that are very popular with the American people are far too radical for them. That's a big cause for their losing election after election, thousands and thousands of them at every level of government except for the very top: they are bereft of visionary ideas and refuse to take bold stances.
But this time, we can do something different. Senator Sanders has been arguing for basic humanitarian principles for literally decades: fair pay for fair work, the right of everyone to receive an education and health care, equality for all, the right to a livable planet, and much more.
And he, unlike many Democrats, has never been ashamed of forcefully advocating for these ideals.
If we get behind him, we'll see this country brought back from the brink and restored to its former position as a world leader, once again advocating on the correct side of issues rather than on the "Far Right" side of all issues.
Submitted Wednesday 07:35
9
I'm responding to this quote: "If we are to decrease affective polarization in the United States, we need politicians that are politically moderate. Unfortunately, voters prefer politicians of their own party that are politically extreme. This incentivizes extreme political candidates, which will only exacerbate current tensions."
There is nothing in the author's study cited that logically supports the claim that politically moderate politicians "decrease affective polarization". Hillary Clinton is a moderate. To decrease such polarization we need to eliminate the demonization of each side that occurs in the media - particularly the garbage spouted by Fox News. The Democrats could pick the most moderate-seeming candidate and he/she would be characterized as extreme. So why not pick a candidate you actually agree with?
19
It's interesting to me that Gary Johnson says that the candidates "are playing to their activist base whose enthusiasm helped produce their House victory in 2018.” It seems to me that the House victory was produced by moderate Democrats winning swing seats, not left-wing progressives winning safely Democratic seats. If the Democrats want to have a chance to defeat Trump in 2020, moderates will need to turn out in the primaries to produce a candidate that most of the country will even consider voting for.
74
@Kate great point. A moderate won in my district but have a feeling she will lose in 2020 as AOC dominates the headlines here.
5
@Kate Clinton was status quo candidate, Trump was populists and ran on best healthcare ever at lowest price, jobs, jobs, jobs, fair trade, draining the swamp and he won. Democrats moderate to the right Hillary Clinton with all the baggage some earned some not.
What is a moderate? What was FDR? What was the new deal in the 1930? 1920's pitchforks and plows in DC demanding better working conditions and policies to help people. Where would we be without those people? Where would we be if the Free GI Bill had not educated our soldiers in science, education, law, et al and that same bill gave veterans a better chance at home ownership? What were the tax rates during those periods? What was inequality rate in those periods?
I would say we would be a failed democracy.
4
@Garth
How much do you pay a year for health insurance?
It seems to me that the only way to lessen the extreme left's advantage in the primaries is to increase voting by the majority of democrats in the primaries. I think that should be the focus of grass roots work and may help to bring a candidate to the fore who can beat Trump.
6
Content will matter at some point. Enough with these political operatives and their polls and tactics.
Buzzwords like "Eliminate ICE" can mean a lot of things. It will be up to the candidates to clarify and the journalists to spread the word and probe.
Progressives do not want to eliminate border and immigration staff. They want to split up ICE into two separate agencies:
ICE’s (ERO) Enforcement and Removal Operations and
ICE's (HSI) Homeland Security Investigations
ICE (ERO) investigates immigration infractions and handles deportations.
ICE (HSI) builds criminal cases against international drug smuggling operations, sex trafficking rings, and cross-border gangs (like MS-13), involving collaboration with local police, and the HSI investigators say their association with the ERO is making it hard for them to do their jobs.
So, eliminate ICE means end the umbrella organization.
It will be up to the candidates and the public to inform and get informed about the actual issues.
And journalists can help -- explaining, clarifying, truth-checking, asking questions, and getting answers.
Enough of the horse-race and buzzwords.
Same goes for universal health care -- let's talk content, process of transitioning to a new system, time-line, and likely cost. The candidates need to clarify and journalists need to force them to clarify and clear-up the differences.
Citizens need to avoid being misled by the buzzword oversimplification and confusion.
93
@JustThinkin “Citizens need to avoid being misled by the buzzword oversimplification and confusion.”
Good luck with that.
7
@JustThinkin
"And journalists can help -- explaining, clarifying, truth-checking, asking questions, and getting answers."
Had journalists being doing their jobs the last 40 years we might not be in this pickle.
Objectivity on all sides of every issue doesn't always tell the full story. And that is what we have had lately.
4
So it’s the lying, unethical media?
Where have I heard that before?
The dilemma is simple. A candidate can opt for broadly-based "good ideas"for many (which would help that candidate to win the general election) instead of choosing narrowly-based "bad ideas" that benefit only voting bloc or group (which would enable the candidate to win a primary).
With the Media poised to support candidates in the Democratic Party who opt for the narrowly-based "bad ideas", the dilemma becomes further crystallized. Too bad the Media cannot bring itself to say "Wow, now that's a BAD idea overall."
An evaluation of BAD ideas - on their merits as policies, not necessarily on how they might play within this group or that group - would be a worthwhile endeavor for the Media.
4
Thanks for your post. I think you’re onto something, but your post undermines its point in the delivery.
First, this opinion column appears in an issue where the Times has presented the views of diverse economists on Bernie’s “bad”(?) Medicare for All proposal. In other words, the NY Times and others are trying to evaluate policies on their merits. But maybe you’re worried about the local news sources that have been bought up and recite conservative talking points benefiting their corporate owners. That’s a different part of the media.
Second, we find these policies under review in the media, and they are not necessarily “bad” even if they do not command majority support. If a southern politician ran on abolition in the south before the Civil War, he would almost certainly lose, but not because the policy was bad. Some electorates are just not ready for “good” policy. So we get 3/5 compromises, etc. until the electorate changes. Until then, some politicians harvest votes by fertilizing bad popular ideas, like racial superiority.
How should moderates handle those strategic opponents? If you want to get support by doing good things, but the electoral map favors them, productivity will require passing bad, popular policies.
Considering the Congress Obama faced, it’s unclear even Clinton’s policies could squeak through. In that context, do you want a leader that is preparing you to lower your expectations, or one that favors your ideals? Which vote counts?
Thomas Edsall, a writer for whom I normally have a fair amount of respect, does some serious misreporting here. He writes, "Leading Democratic candidates are supporting bold progressive policy initiatives that are supported by liberal primary voters . . . ." This is simply untrue.
What is actually happening is that leading Democratic candidates are GIVING SERIOUS LIP SERVICE to bold progressive policy initiatives that are supported by liberal primary voters. Most Democratic candidates, with the notable exception of people like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren (who have the temerity to actually represent the real interests of the bottom 90% of America), will drop the mouthed "bold progressive policies" the moment they secure the party nomination.
If this all sounds vaguely familiar to you, it should. It is nothing but "Hope and Change You Can Believe In, Volume 2." The direct effect of Hope and Change You Can Believe In, Volume 1, is President Donald J. Trump.
It's repetition will destroy the Democratic Party. It's already destroyed America. Vote accordingly.
30
@Greg Gerner
Donald Trump was not "the direct result of Hope and Change" (Obama).
Obama won. Twice.
Trump is the direct result of the D's choosing Crooked Hillary.
2
The GOP base consists of a mostly homogeneous set of whites who oppose abortion and immigration and who support guns and Evangelical Christianity. They will vote for anyone (such as Trump) who supports these positions.
The Democrats are a much more diverse group. And although most Americans in principle favor the policies they advance, their supporters are more likely to not vote, or to vote third-party if they think that the candidate fails to meet even one item on their personal checklist. That is how they can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
The paradoxical answer is for the Democratic candidate to disavow all slogans and run a "pothole campaign" promising to fix specific things, like student loan debt and infrastructure, and let the GOP say, as they will, that a vote for the Democrats is a vote for a socialist who will take away your cows and you guns.
4
We have enough issues, impacting voters across racial, ethnic, economic, and political lines, to be engaging in "boutique policies."
First step in recovering from Trump is to return to basics. That doesn't mean the status quo. It means practical, actionable policies and programs on education, the environment, health care, immigration, and jobs.
Second step is to dislodge "conservatives" who've enabled or allowed the nation to move towards benefiting only the very wealthy, and ensure that constitutional protections are returned to all.
5
In order to gain control of the White House, the Democrats need to win back the electoral votes, in the Heartland, that went to Trump in 2016. What appeals to swing voters in those districts is what matters -- little else. Democrats, in any case, will win in the Boston to Washington corridor and on the West Coast. Republicans will win in the South and Mountain States.
It is that Heartland vote that will decide the issue! Democrats can afford to be no more "radical" than sells there.
21
@Penseur
I disagree. What Democrats need to focus on is re-engaging the Black and Latinx voters who came out for Obama but stayed home for Clinton. This is especially true in swing states with 8+ electoral votes: WI, MI, PA and NC. Smaller and more conservative states (non-urban) don't matter.
6
@Penseur
Spot on, Penseure. The candidate that can win the midwest is the candidate the Democratic Party needs. And, in conjunction with this article, it is well to keep in mind what a president can and cannot do. Even the most progressive president cannot accomplish much without control of the senate. So all the radical posturing and sloganeering will amount to little more than window dressing otherwise.
7
@Cousy Those are the swing states that were being referenced, imo. Without those we lose, and whatever it takes to get 100k votes out of those states is what we have to do. Win back union voters, engage black and latinix would all be a good thing...and probably win us the election.
1