I now realize how much damage Obama did to the Democratic Party and the left in general. I voted for him twice.
Last night I took a yellow cab home, the cab driver was an immigrant, loved this country, was deciding who to vote for in the Dems primary...and he said, “Obama was planning to become an oligarch from the minute he was elected. That’s why he gave all the money to the bankers, he did nothing for us. And, look at him and Michelle now, look at their friends and their houses. They are happy oligarchs”.
He actually used the word “oligarch” when referring to Obama, whom he had voted for with hope. Breaks my heart. We had so much hope vested in Obama, and he failed to address the growing inequality, and the cabbie actually blamed Obama for it.
11
“Begala continued, the best thing a Democratic presidential candidate can do is ‘tell voters that Trump has proposed hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.’ ”
Absolutely. Another Trump campaign promise broken. And an example of his being led by traditional Republicans rather than leading. “I was the first & only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid.”
—Twitter, 07 May 2015
The Democratic Party is dominated by people who think that they should impose their preferences upon society because they are truly enlightened and all others are just as dumb as fence posts. Unfortunately, the country was built upon very dissimilar states which required compromises to keep them all happy. It means that unless a political party can compromise to gain support across disparate interest groups, it's going to have a tough time staying in power. This group of Democrats can win primaries for national office holders with a message that resonates with their base but not further which gives eight balls like Trump an opportunity to win national elections with their base constituents while the voters in the middle lose interest.
7
I don't understand.
--The Democrats did not "do enough" as a result of the Mueller Report;
--or the Dems are "doing something" as a result of the Mueller Report, but it is "taking too long";
-- or the Dems will lose the 2020 elections because they are going down the Impeachment Road;
--or the Dems need to expand the Impeachment inquiry beyond the Ukranian Issue;
--or the Dems need to restrict the Impeachment Inquiry.
Now they are in jeopardy of "Overreaching"?
Having not been through this actual fact pattern, and given the fluid nature of the facts as they are developed......let me ask this question: Who has a Crystal Ball?
Can't wait for the armchair quarterbacks after the 2020 elections.
2
Ah, where would we be without our daily dose of "Democrats In Disarray!"?
I, for one, am refreshed and relieved to find that this finely-tuned rhetorical craft still flourishes in The Times.
The GOP thrives on ignorance. Trump even said he preferred poorly educated people. Our country has a long history of preferring people who are ignorant to those who learn to think and who don't always conform but who do try to point out where things can be improved. The GOP wants none of that. The problem is that the GOP wins the propaganda wars in America because they say what people want to believe is true. The GOP is allergic to facts and reality.
That said, I have the feeling that Trump is going to win in 2020 unless he is impeached and removed. The Democrats need to learn to play the game as well as the GOP does. They need to stop answering the GOP and start stating how GOP policies and plans will hurt more people than they will help. And they have to stop sounding condescending.
3
The problem with "political correctness" will never disappear until more people realize that the USE of the complaint about "political correctness" is another symptom--just like "political correctness"--that ignores the larger core issues: we are channeled into "us versus them" polarizations.
"Compromise" is not a solution, only a band aid that soon falls off.
We need a broader commitment to work towards meeting more of peoples' needs, whether they live in rural, urban, south, or north--or wherever. Whether they are of the predominant culture or not.
The "job" is not finished until we are patient enough to work until we have "win-win" commitments and conditions.
1
Well of course the Republicans came back, they're the only party fighting for freedom, economic and true civil liberties. They are the party that will not use our tax dollars to give to people who did not earn them. And no tax breaks do not give the wealthy "our" tax dollars since they were never "ours" to begin with. Democrats are the ones who think it's virtuous to reach their hands into other people's pockets, not Republicans. So it's clear who's fighting for civil rights and who's not. Oh, and health care, a service provided by a person, is not a civil right, it's a service, one in which the person offering should be able to set whatever price they want. Again, it's a service.
And yes, Americans in general are against political correctness, which is clearly a Democratic party platform, because they can't run against the humming economy. They think, "Might as well shame the bigots and rouse the angry mobs!"
And someone should tell the so called progressive, Mr. Greenberg, that it's racist to think you know how all minorities will vote. Someone should tell him, they have minds of their own, and might actually vote for economic and social freedom with the Republicans rather than control, manipulation, and involuntary participation in things that the Democrats require.
10
Look at California.. republicans are withering away here.. and as CA goes, so goes the nation.
12
I take exception to the narrative that somehow Obama and the Democrats didn't do enough, resulting in Trump. Let's recap what Obama did, despite categorical Republican opposition:
1. Expanded health insurance by 20 million people, cutting the uninsured rate in half. About 4 million more would have been covered, except the SCOTUS let the Republican red states avoid Medicaid expansion.
2. CBO reported the ACA shifted about $600 to the average bottom 40% family per year, while raising taxes on the average top 1% family by about $20,000 per year. Recall CBO said the ACA slightly reduced the deficit.
3. Obama let the Bush tax cuts expire for the top 1-2% and raised taxes on the top 1% via the ACA. This improved after-tax inequality. By 2016, the share of income going to the top 1% was below the 2007 peak. The budget deficit was below historical average as % GDP by 2015.
4. Obama tried to raise the minimum wage nationally, but was stopped by Republicans. Many states however did raise the wage, a key reason why we're now seeing wages rising faster for the bottom than the top of the income distribution.
5. Obama's overtime rules were stopped by the courts; a watered down version just passed under Trump that helps far fewer people.
Keep the blame where it belongs, on Republicans. There is no limit to the good that Democrats can do, and Republicans need to wake up to that reality instead of voting against their own interests for nationalistic/racist reasons.
1
Hillary did have some 3 million more votes than Trump and she was not even progressive, she is just another Republican light. Progressive Democrats are leading the polls not the establishment Biden. Voters want social progress like affordable health insurance, childcare, public education and more.
Other than tax cuts for the wealthy Republicans have nothing to offer. Trump will be the ruin of the global economy and that will include the US too.
I have a theory about what ails Democratic outreach to economic struggling communities. First, let me frame it: in medicine, you have preventative care, restorative care, and palliative care.
There are many forces driving inequality, such as financialization, globalization, and automation, to name a few.
I believe struggling constituencies are primarily interested in preventative care. This could manifest as "don't let the jobs leave". This is straightforward, but anathema to neoliberalism which believes we're better off when the whole is more efficient. That said, families can't eat theory and the homeless can't live in a concept.
Democratic policymakers are effectively proposing palliative care, which isn't inspiring at all. In effect the message is, "the jobs aren't coming back, but we'll ease the pain". There's no point campaigning or volunteering for this message.
Basic income won't fully restore your financial position, once you're displaced.
Democrats need to articulate how they'll prevent harms from happening, or how they'll fully restore people to their prior condition when they do occur.
1
The key is to advocate popular policies:
1. Raise taxes on the rich (income, estate, wealth). Helps both the deficit and inequality, while funding the rest of the agenda. Zucman and Saez (inequality guru economists) say we can get $750 billion/year from the top 1%.
2. Expand access to healthcare, via expanded ACA subsidies. Medicare for All may be overreach, so slowly lower the Medicare age (say to 55, if not eligible for healthcare plan through work).
3. Expand access to college or trade school, making in-state tuition covered by those higher taxes on the rich.
4. Put Social Security more sound financial footing, by removing the cap on payroll tax. This affects the top 6% of wage earners only, and only for their income over $132,900, but it covers 70% of the shortfall for 75 years. Worry about the rest once in office.
5. Establish a National Commission on Healthcare Costs, to figure out how the rest of the world delivers healthcare for 40% less. Under that aegis, implement tougher policies to force down costs.
2
Paul Bengals is right; the two issues that will resonate most with voters are Trump’s corruption and the fact that he’s tried to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The third issue is that he’s still trying to eliminate protections for preexisting conditions by seeking to have the courts rule the ACA unconstitutional.
Democrats shouldn’t lead with their noses. If you lead with Medicare-for-All, Trump will portray it as an effort to steal from Medicare and many seniors will fall for it.
1
"Democrats did not do enough when they were in power to tackle the rise in inequality, inadequate education and health care, stagnant wages, and declining communities that would, in time, create a frustrated electorate — all too ready to elect a Donald Trump in 2016." I guess that electorate is all too ready to dump Trump, then.
1
The points made sound like a fair read on the country to me. I also think the reconciling of the liberal, upper educated, and working middle class without college degrees, is not hard to understand. Both want an egalitarian society, with equal opportunity for all. Not the self dealing, advantage centered America that white conservatives are trying to maintain.
Some liberals are not going to like repercussions when they attempt to exert their financial weight, think the college admission scandal, but the message will continue. We just need those deceived by people, like Trump, who sell themselves as a populist, but are the most self serving of them all.
1
The day will come when most Dems finally admit that Obama's significance is pretty much limited to his 2008 campaign. As a leader he was timid, dithering and pusillanimous. His election should have been the end of Reaganism. America was ready for real change - instead they got glittering platitudes and George H.W. Bush's second term. The disappointment fueled a massive reaction and the steroidal Reaganism we have under Trump.
Trump hasn't just shattered the Republican Party, he's shattered political conventions of every sort including the certitudes that Mr. Begala regurgitates circa 1985. Either this is the beginning of a new awful normal, or the beginning of something quite unexpected and different. I'll hope for the latter. Instead of settling for a Biden and the discredited policies of yesterday, perhaps something passionate and bold is in order.
4
If Obama ran for a third term, I and millions of Americans would vote for him. He’s easily the best president in my lifetime, and I find it offensive that anyone would compare him to Bush or Reagan. Who else could have achieved the ACA and Dodd Frank, the two most significant reforms of this century?
Obama did the most important thing—he got elected. If you don’t win elections, it doesn’t matter how ambitious your plans are. Electability is the first rule.
1
@SandraH I'm sorry, but AHCA was Ms. Pelosi's accomplishment. If you will recall, it was only after she publicly chastised him in January 2010 for abandoning it that the administration finally got behind it. You are also mistaken about Dodd Frank. The Obama administration DID NOT support it. Obama grudgingly signed it only after it passed. And it was Sen. Warren who ran afoul of the administration after she kept harping on Obama's failure to enforce it. As for being the "best president of my lifetime," well, the bar since 1968 has been set pretty low. I lived through the Kennedy and Johnson administrations and Obama doesn't come close.
6
Omg. The Demacrats never miss a chance to screw up a great thing. Don’t worry. The DNC will screw up this chance to beat Trump
5
It’s very ironic that the party of the corporate elite( including Trump) have managed to label the party of social justice and economic equality as “elite.” Yes, a very good con job.
4
Now that I am avidly reading these letters, I am struck by the hatred that so many otherwise able people have for the "Libruls". It seems to have metastasized to include all democrats. For the life of me, I cannot understand why, unless it is an artifact of a "divide and conquer strategy " run amok. What we used to call consideration has been labeled as the terrible disease called political correctness, the give and take of cooperation and compromise is called surrender, the list can go on and on. Have we already given up on the hope of running a Democracy?
2
It used to be called good manners, which appear to have gone out of style. Everyone from the president down rushes to tweet the cruelest insult possible. A particularly cutting insult gets lots of upvotes and shares—lots of reinforcement. I would like to see a return to civility and common decency. That’s the America I remember.
1
I would take closer look at the median household data referenced. Just because an area has a high median household income doesn't mean necessarily that there are a lot of rich people. It could also indicate there's a larger middle class compared to other areas.
2
To paraphrase Niccolo Machiavelli, it is the bold rather than the cautious that will win in politics. Impeach Trump in the House and let the chips fall where they may. Voters can make the 2020 election a referendum on Trump and not on Democratic “overreach.”
3
"Overreaching" is impossible as any Democratic candidate will not be Trump.
1
Pollsters, please note: people who say they disapprove of "political correctness" may include a lot of left-leaning people. It's a bad idea to extrapolate people's attitudes from their response to a buzzword because people of all political persuasions use the expression to describe something they dislike, sometimes policy, sometimes attitude. When Rush Limbaugh uses it, he sneers at those who regard all people as equal under the law, using the sneer to conceal his anxieties about actual equality. When a 19-year old follower of Greta Thunberg uses it to mock someone espousing views with which she agrees, she's describing a tone that irritates her. Why ask people a question that elicits a response to a buzzword ? Ask them about whether they believe in equal protection under the laws: then you'd elicit a genuine response, not a knee-jerk reaction.
4
Of course the democrats will overreach. It is what they do.
Those of us living outside the bubble know that there is a very good chance that Trump will be voted out of office. Provided that democrats drive home the kitchen table economic and policy arguments. Instead they concentrate on Trump and impeachment. Which is exactly what Mr. Small Hands wants. Which means there is a very good chance that he will not be voted out of office.
Thanks for nothing democrats.
7
For the Democrats to fare better with rural voters they need to put forth an economic plan that has some chance of rebuilding small communities that have declined since the Recession. Trump promised to bring back coal (hasn't) & manufacturing (now in a recession). Despite Trumps failings unemployment is extremely low & more people at the bottom 20% have jobs & some hope of improvement. It will necessitate a plan to improve their lives more that can win their votes back.
3
Very powerful article, thanks for your insight. I wish I knew the person who had the answers, we know why we voted the GOP in, but we can't seem to agree how to get them out. Being simplistic is something to remember. America doesn't like him in the office, nor do our allies, and it can't be clearer our government is plutocratic. That simple. As said before three years ago it will be his lies, his morality, his lack of interest and care for the electorate that will bring the GOP down at the polls. Hopefully the DNP will remember to remind the American people not only do illegal activities like today's Ukranian Affair illustrates the need for impeachment, but the importance of how ones feels inside is far more important than dotting i's and crossing t's. GOP voters think about how much lobbyist money is coming to them, but DNP voters are concerned about their healthcare, their children's education, elimination of Wall Street excessive profits, unfair income distribution, their day to day responsibilities of family, faith, and caring for a fair and righteous government. If the DNP loses in 2020 we will see partisan politics like never seen before. And as for Mitch McConnell, he better start building his hideaway in Kentucky.
1
Maybe the Dems can be seen to be overreaching largely through media punditry’s straining to maintain some distance from truth and giving unearned credence to Trump’s arguments in order to create an appearance of impartiality. But in fact no one can overreach when it comes to the illegalities perpetrated by Trump and his Administration. If everyone just stopped acting as if this naked would be emperor has even the thinnest of threads resident on his body, he would have been removed from office long ago. The evidence justifying it is as clear as day and has been almost from day one.
1
" The survey found that among all voters, 80 percent agreed that 'political correctness is a problem in our country,' including 79 percent of those under 24, 82 percent of Asian-Americans and 87 percent of Hispanics — core constituencies of 'the New America' Greenberg sees as ascendant."
Gee, do you think so?
Some months ago there was an OP-ED piece about how to get Democrats elected. I commented that if you want to see Democrats get elected, they should have their next presidential candidate refer to illegal immigrants as illegal immigrants.
The comment stands. It's not that difficult, really.
The problem lies with the assumption that all "people of color" have a unified acceptance of the rhetoric from the Democratic Party as well as many of the NYT OP-ED writers.
7
@Jp Note there is a big difference between an "illegal immigrant" and an asylum seeker. Most of those at our southern border are asylum seekers - trying to get away from murderous gangs and climate change caused drought/famine.
1
Yet the ones who complain the loudest about PC are the ones crying the most when one of their groups is negatively called out. Rural voters need to be coddled and told how the are the specialist of snowflakes is how everyone of the articles about tolerance.
Republican description of Democratic elites is laughable. Republican elites are like Trump: rich and greedy; steadfastly ignorant.
4
Democrats "keep themselves from overreaching!!?" Hilarious! The horse left the barn a loooong time ago, phony/dossier FISA warrants, fake collusion nonsense, one whistle blower with second hand info, and then abracadabra another one with first hand knowledge. Overreaching is a profound understatement, and the backlash is going to cost them big-time in the election.
8
I’ll hazard a guess that you haven’t read the Mueller report, which is why you talk about fake dossiers and fake collusion. The Steele dossier was largely accurate, but it laced actionable intelligence, which is why you won’t read about it in the Mueller report. In other words, it’s raw intelligence, even if pretty good raw intelligence.
As for collusion, there were multiple instances of the Trump team cooperating with the Russians, including Trump’s campaign manager sharing internal polling and strategy data with a member of the GRU.
Fox News is pushing the trope that it’s somehow relevant that the first whistleblower had second-hand knowledge. Nonsense. Trump himself has openly admitted that he tried to get Ukraine to open an investigation into his political rival. Then he invited China to open investigations on two rivals. We also have the memorandum on conversation of Trump’s call to Zelensky, plus all the text messages between Sondland and Trump’s special envoy to Ukraine. In other words, we have the proof that Trump sought help from a foreign power and used the power of the presidency to further his own political interests.
The facts aren’t in dispute.
This is a column about FUTURE Democratic overreaching even as the occupant of the WH is CURRENTLY overreaching.
2
Never bring a knife to a gunfight.
My concern about the Democrats is that they will underreach, losing all steam for fear of the explosive brawl being visited upon them and common decency by President Trump and his supine GOP crew of cowardly, vicious malefactors.
2
Relax. She's got this.
Where is Lyndon Johnson when you need him?
2
Another eggregiously long-winded term paper stitched together from a handful of emails.
3
Depends on your definition of "overreach", Mr. Edsall. The American President and his administration refuses to be accountable to Congress or the rule of law. If you asked he'd say he's being accountable to the electorate (you know, the minority of voters who voted for him) but your last Federal election has been proven to have been rigged by a foreign government - the one ruled by the oligarch he seems so fond of holding private conversations with.
I don't know that you can "overreach" in this instance.
1
Another over-analyzed, multi-study, multi-graph tome from Edsall, who I actually appreciate pawing through all this stuff. Except - it's just STUFF. Grad students and academics and pollsters looking everywhere to find answers, answers that are staring them in the face if they just open their eyes and ears. Then again, they need to publish to survive.
Michael Moore, the filmmaker, has called it right each and every time. Michael Moore knows America, knows the Democratic base (then and now), knows what's going on.
Please listen to and pay lots of attention to Michael Moore. He is calling it right right now and will call it right for 2020.
1
The most important issue in Trump's election, and possible reelection is barely mentioned here. That issue is immigration/asylum. Do you think blacks support porous borders? No. Not when they are leveraged out of jobs by even cheaper labor. Has the drug problem vanished? No. Check out all of the new graves in industrial America. Has Latin American culture vanquished corruption and fraud? No. They have exported it to America.
Only about 20% of asylum claims are deemed credible. Therein lies the credibility of Trump.
5
It's quite simple: Wind Trump up and let him self-incriminate.
Nancy Pelosi turned out to have the right strategy. She didn't want to impeach Trump. Like all Americans of good will, she felt it was better for American democracy to let the voters decide at the polls.
But the incredible self-impeaching president, by perpetrating acts of increasing brazenness and treachery, demanded that she take action.
Republicans fail to grasp that securing our borders from immigrants committing the crime of seeking a better a life will do little when Trump is throwing open the goats to foreign participation in our elections. They don't have a problem with it since they are the beneficiaries of Trump's treachery. But the dangers are obvious.
Just reviewing the comments, I see Republicans presenting classic straw-man arguments: "Democrats are for open borders!"
Fringe proposals are hardly representative of the vast, vast majority of reasonable democratic voters.
No open borders. Surely reasonable people can agree that a nation comprised almost entirely of immigrants ("Give us your tired...") can continue to offer a balanced, legal, secure immigration policy. At the same time, we should also agree that elections should be closed to foreigners.
The absurdity of Republican reasoning is again on display. Further, Americans understand intuitively that such laughable inconsistency betrays the cynicism of the con men selling it.
1
Why are columnists fretting about Dem "overreaching", when Dems are trying to rein in a joke president who does nothing BUT overreach? The man is criminally corrupt and does nothing BUT "overreach". He needs to go, NOW.
And Dems should be concerned about "overreach"? Gimme a break, huh?
2
@Mike - I believe his concern (and mine) is that the Dems are at risk of campaigning on issues that, regardless of their merit, are not appealing to enough people to let whichever nominee actually win the election.
In which case, the party will have completely failed to rein in someone who would then do far deeper damage with a whole second term to play around with.
Neither party makes up more than around 30% of the electorate. So to win, people in the middle need to vote for your party. I hope this clears it up a bit.
3
Please please read this article Warren and/or Buttigieg. You are my favorites and if you read this and take to heart I can relax.
1
This sounds pretty encouraging, but I would remind everyone that both the Electoral College and the Senate tilt the playing field in favor of predominantly rural, sparsely populated states such as Wyoming and the Dakotas. Add on top of that the power of GOP state governments in swing states in the midwest, Florida and North Carolina, where we can be quite sure they will ramp up voter suppression (e.g., purging voter registries, closing/moving polling locations) and accept the help of external sources who will sow social media with disinformation (e.g., re dates/times/locations for voting; requirements for voting; "penalties" for "voter fraud"). Dems may have a ten point advantage in national polls and still lose in the electoral college and Senate, unless turnout is truly massive.
2
The title of this is "How can Democrats keep themselves from overreaching?" In the past several years, it is the other party that has been overreaching--Merrick Garland, gerrymandering, disenfranchisement, kleptocracy, and having a narcissistic ignoramus dangerously foaming at the mouth in the White House are pieces of evidence that come quickly to mind. But never mind, Thomas Edsall is worried about Democratic overreach. And from his biased perspective, he worries about a "left vs. left-of-center" conflict among Democrats, which is (including Sanders and Warren) really left-of-center vs. slightly-right-of-center. The big items of debate--universal access to health care regardless of ability to pay and doing something about our collapsing global ecosystem--are issues for humanity, not on a left-right spectrum (unless one is an acolyte of the kleptocracy and has a zero discount function for the tomorrows of tomorrow). So please wake up, Mr. Edsall, and look at the world as it is, not as Faux Noise portrays it.
1
This time Edsall and his scholars have missed the boat. It is wrong to look at this through the lens of the Democrats or Obama. The Democrats and Obama would have done a great deal of good for the Trump base, had the Senate Republicans not obstructed them to an unprecedented degree. We can now safely agree that this Republican tactic was largely based on racism. To be sure, Obama could have accomplished more had he been a bit more experienced. However, the failure of the federal government to address the pain of the 2008 Republican economic crash must be laid at the feet of this Republican scheme which put their own power over the wellbeing of the nation.
2
An enduring majority of the public knows it has been and is being scammed by its "public servants". Every month for the past 16 years -- 192 months and counting -- a majority, often a super majority, of poll respondents have said the country is on the wrong track.
Sustain public support for a progressive agenda by focusing on two major topics: Making the System Work for the Public and Addressing Life-and-Death Problems.
Within each pick three issues to advance that are easy to understand, enjoy wide support, and benefit tens or hundreds of millions of people, such as these life-and-death issues:
Health care: offer a public option and act to lower prescription drug prices
Gun safety: comprehensive background checks and red flag
Environment: promote clean air and water by codifying anti-pollution actions that were implemented by Executive Order
Making the System Work for the Public:
Restoring Electoral Integrity and Voting Rights: By statute nullify Citizens United and update the Voting Rights Act to moot Shelby County
Self-dealing by Public Servants: Require divestiture, tax return disclosure, and pass a Corrupt Practices Act
Taxes: Legislate an Alternative Minimum Tax that ensures a progressive tax rate.
In general, sustain public support by first enacting what the public already wants.
3
We are living in a time of overreach on both sides. We are living in a time of hyper-partisanship and we voters have had it.
Cable news is an endless 24/7 slog of political warfare - voters are disgusted. Many innovation solutions to big problems are happening all across America, we're not hearing about this in the media enough.
There needs to be one focus: November 2020 and the roadmap to get there.
Appeals to what is morally right or wrong won't bring a blue wave. What will is a strategy for winning the rust belt states, moderating positions on immigration and healthcare, addressing the financial insecurity of the middle class, who are up at 3 am wondering how they are going to pay bills, keep a roof over their heads, food on the table and their kids safe. And then of course there's the 100+million who live at or below poverty level in America.
Democrats need to stop right now & start listening to the American people first, consider voters' massive pain points and not polls.
3
Dear Democratic Party - please keep the following thing in mind as you define your platform and decide on a candidate to replace Trump.
1- your party is a minority - and so are Republicans. Most Americans are independents - pretty steadily around 40% (like me).
https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
2- give serious thought to why people who voted twice for Obama then voted for the orange one.
For the progressives who are making it all about Social Justice Now, think very, very hard about the fact that a lot of the people who need some help themselves see themselves as specifically excluded from your messaging.
Right or wrong, they see checklists of groups who will be "given things" and, since they are typically called the problem, they then see themselves as under the checklist "take from these people". Medicare for All, for instance, translates to "if you have insurance now, we'll make you give it up, just so we can help someone else".
So tone down the special-group messaging. Try reminding all Americans that there are issues that affect us all, and that need fixing while the GOP is working hard to give everything back to just the wealthy.
And maybe try redefining some of your message towards "here's how we plan to make things better for all of us hard-working Americans". Don't even mention color, or gender, or anything beyond how to make the average American's life a little more stable, a bit more secure.
9
@b fagan -- from one Independent to another, thank you for this post! Agree wholeheartedly.
2
Ms. Sawhill writes: "Democrats did not do enough when they were in power to tackle ... health care"
Are you kidding me? Is ACA already forgotten? Is there nothing we worked on when in power that does not get swept up in the "democrats are inadequate" self-flagellation? We're not suffering because Democrats failed; we're suffering because the rest of America is in the grips of a powerful delusion.
What is this "overreaching"? Non-republicans have visions of the future and they take pride in achievements that improve the quality of life - why shouldn't they work to fulfill their visions and express their enthusiasm? The real question is 'why do Republicans view non-republican aspiration as overreach?'. What meanness of spirit makes them offended by the ideas of health care for all, a stable climate, and respect for our neighbors? Republicans have dug themselves into a psychological hole that makes everyone else seem like enemies.
The author seems to assume that Democrats can simply make the case to the US voters and let them decide. He is ignoring the elephant in the room, the information warfare machines that exist in our country and abroad to make sure that many people only hear lies and caricatures of the proposals at hand. He is also ignoring the fact that, between gerrymandering and calls for foreign interference, Republicans are engaged in a long game to make sure that the will of the voters is suppressed. There is a universal background checks bill, passed in February, and supported by 90% of the US people, that lays dying on McConnell's desk. We are foolish to think that our "democracy" currently represents the will of the people.
I;ve always veered to the left but the identity politics and the open borders hysteria have become so irritating that I am beginning to see the GOP as the adult in the room.
9
@Kai "Open borders hysteria" is a completely fictional creation of the far right and other immigrant haters. I agree with you on identity politics, but a party led by someone with an eight-year-old's mentality is hardly an adult in any sense.
@Carl Yaffe
really? look at your latest AOC and Castro missives. "children in cages"? "concentration camps" (all as they were during Obama years)? free healthcare for illegals? 'sanctuary cities'? letting millions of 'asylum seekers' (ie, economic migrants) into the heartland from here they promptly disappear into the 20 million+ pool of "American untouchables"? resistance to eVerify?
The situation that Trump inherited was as follows: anyone could come to the border , claim asylum and was promptly released into the heartland. This was unsustainable. There is not a country in the world - certainly not in Latin America - that can support this indefinitely. 20 million!
6
Yeah right. In a world with "perfect" information or at least information that isn't so woefully imperfect, what you and Greenberg and others here are saying might be true.
But, you are not accounting for the extraordinary ability of Fox News and other right-wing news outlets to brainwash a substantial portion of the electorate in the service of plutocrats who want to maintain the status quo.
And, you are not accounting for a disgracefully unrepresentative electoral college that is the real elector of presidents. The absurd apportionment of the US Senate exacerbates this unrepresentative "democratic republic." The 16 most states with greatest population have 67% of the American population but only have 32 senators. And, the 16 states with least population also have 32 senators. They only have about 6% of the overall population.
This is not a representative democratic republic, plain and simple. If it were, Republicans wouldn't have a prayer at maintaining power. If Trump squeaks another electoral college victory and loses the "popular" vote again, it could be the death knell of the American experiment. Just imagine an unconstrained Trump with no reelection to worry about. The consequences would be horrific!
There is no extremism in defense of liberty - and make no mistake - that is the fight in which we the people are engaged. There are no compromises to be had - no middle ground to occupy. Republicans have abandoned democracy, applauded lawlessness and undermined our governing institutions. Evangelical Fake Christians constitute the core of what has become a traitorous power-mad party - no different from Hungary's Fidesz or Poland's Law and Justice Parties. They believe America is a Whites only Christian theocracy founded on biblical principles of blind obedience, servility and patriarchy - forget about the real founder's enlightenment principles of equality, freedom, justice, and separation of church and state.
1
Shorter Thomas Edsall: Democrats should continue to pursue the half-measures that lost them the White House, both houses of Congress, and over a thousand state legislative seats between 2010 and 2014 because I, a NY Times Editorial Board member, know exactly what working class Americans really want.
A poll on the question of "political correctness?" Really? What exactly is political correctness? it is nothing more than a right wing meme repeated ad nauseum to imply that human rights and/or any other progressive ideas are suspect. Polls based on right wing memes do not deserve discussion in the NYT despite Edsall's obsession that they have some greater meaning, truth or factial basis.
Everyone should jump on Amazon and order a string of pearls to clutch. And it you want to do this proper, a fainting couch can be had as well.
"Democrats overreaching" and "Democrats in disarray" are the two pre-ordained press framings for all stories about Democratic politics.
Democrats will have to acknowledge the electoral college by making policy for all working people, like Trump does. And, yes, everyone is tired of identity politics especially as practiced by white democrat party elites. Warren, what a fake! If Trump manages to wrap-up trade deals favorably and in time, Democrats may not have to worry about how they have already overreached.
2
Democrats, it is not that hard.
You won the culture wars a long time ago! You can afford to show some magnanimity in victory. The GOP is fueled mostly by the Versailles Treaty-like terms you've been imposing on the vanquished ever since.
Drop the dogma and brutal policing of every public utterance. Allow wiggle room for people of good will to disagree. Reject cancel culture. Allow for diversity of thought and values, not just diversity of color, sex and gender. Stop making everything about identity and victimhood.
And offer Americans the kind of economic populism which Trump only promised. A broad swathe of voters are ready for it.
Go left on economics, go easy on the identity politics/virtue signalling. It's not that hard.
6
Over reach?
Will the Democrats raise taxes?
“Political correctness” is a buzzword that can mean whatever you want it to mean. So naturally you can use a poll on political correctness to mean whatever the you want it to mean.
Why is there not a single sign in the article photo for the senator from Vermont? There's even a Bennet sign. What's Bennet polling at?
1
Lets go over it again. It gets mentioned so seldom but it's the elephant in the room - the chasm of Christian iniquity. America leads the world in incarcerating its people (mostly over marihuana). America is the most unequal of advanced countries. Want the American dream? Move to Finland. America is the biggest producer and proliferator of guns and weapons upon the world. Now, this one, war. Americans are taxed to spend as much as the rest of the world on endless wars for no clear reason. Americans have killed millions of peasant people in wars that are mistakes to illegal. Now the world's only superpower is refusing to lead on climate change. A distinct majority of America's Christians have been routinely voting for all of the above. Now they have placed a "money changer" of Biblical proportions in the highest temple of our land. Good Old Time Religions are now the greatest threat to mankind.
One American political party is on the wrong side of every issue. There is nothing the GOP can be respected for. It has been shaming America and destroying the American dream ever since Ronald Reagan's Tax Cut Revolution.
It has not been OK to be a Republican for a long time already. Now it is just deplorable. Friends don't let friends vote Republican. There are only two kinds of Republican: rich ones and dumb ones, but all Republicans are mean spirited and in need of further domestication.
1
Probably Edsall's best column in a long time. Good theme. He has a huge "supporting cast" of scholars and pundits.
1
From the article: "Democrats did not do enough when they were in power to tackle the rise in inequality, inadequate education and health care, stagnant wages, and declining communities" What I would really like to know is how much do voters believe the GOP has ever done to address those issues? The Democrats may not have done enough, but do voters really believe it was less then the GOP has ever done?
There is a false premise to this argument. While lgbqt rights and healthcare reform are now part of a democratic policy, in the future they will be no more right or left than social security or civil rights are now. The question for americans is how do we get these causes out of the left right dynamic and into the general consciousness as quickly as possible? We can accomplish this by pushing our agenda as hard as we can, but understand that compromise on these issues still yields positive results. So push for one payer/medicare for all, push for more progressive taxation, but be prepared for less than complete annihilation of the other side. So in 2024 when the argument is whether to increase medicare benefits universally as opposed to letting anyone buy in if they choose with it's current benefit packages ( for example) it is already a win.
We might want to consider for a change the consequences of timidity and Clintonian "never everism".
For example, what happens after two status quo years of Joe Biden, with swing voters seeing no improvement in their lives? Maybe the same thing that happened with Obama -- Democratic party decimation in the House, the Senate and at the local and state level, followed in another two years by Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz.
Sound like a plan?
1
@jrd -- or perhaps this likely scenario if someone I guess you'd think properly bold gets into the White House.
After two years of zero initiatives moving through the GOP-controlled Senate, swing voters see no improvement to their lives.
Even if the Bold New President has actual executive skills, they'd be spending several years just appointing skilled people to start undoing the mischief done in the executive branch by the current incumbent.
And progressives who think the Senate isn't an obstacle to grand plans are myopic or too dogmatic to accomplish anything. In a similar vein, the Tea Party and then "Freedom" branch of the GOP destroyed some of the benefits that party had as a two-house majority.
As usual thought provoking.
My concern is gaining the Senate and House Majorities. Priority must be given to fielding candidates who know the issues in their States and Districts and the development of a policy messages that voters will believe and be persuaded to vote Blue. Clearly, these policy response messages should be included in the National Democratic Party platform.
Paul Begalia's comment, "tell voters that Trump has proposed hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. I did not hear one candidate raise that in the last Democratic debate, but it is the issue most likely to defeat Trump." was a shock.
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are truly historic achievements that separate Democrats from Republicans. These programs need fine tuning to assure that the Trust Fund balances will meet the needs of American's.
I remember in the Sanders and Clinton primary debates that Sanders responded affirmatively that he would support eliminating the cap on the payroll deductions for Social Security. This cinched for me that he was thinking about how to make our government programs more fair and more effective.
We have to think these programs through and revise our tax code in the same fashion to eliminate the gross unfairness of the G.O.P. and Tax Cut and Jobs Act, which has proven unfair even to the Red States and Districts. Republicans have harmed public education, health security, and botched jobs related to trade.
2
The Democrats are playing the old game of running on quick and certain satisfactions for people’s most desperate longings, and it’s clearly beyond their abilities to deliver. But, they won’t stop.
Solving problems quickly means imposing limits and allowing unexpected outcomes for expediency’s sake. Comprehensive and sustainable solutions require achieving consensus and years to achieve. People running for President never do what they promise because they can’t and not create bigger problems.
Democrats are asking people to vote for anyone except Trump while making the calculation that things like Medicare for all won't actually happen--at least, not anytime soon.
But voters are voters that smart? Maybe. Many people thought Trump could not possibly do as much damage as he has.
But a campaign strategy based on connecting the dots and reading between the lines sounds very risky to me.
GOP obstructionism and wedge issues were their chief tactics during Obama's years. Austerity was floated as an answer to the growing deficits that were the after effect of the collapse of the economy. Then arose the FEDs quantitative easing to provide some stimulus to the faltering economy which the GOP hated. The ACA is generally recognized as a success. Bailing out the auto industry was instrumental in Obama's reelection. The GOPs most recent presidents Bush and Trump went straight to paying off the wealthy and demonizing gov't spending as huge deficits grew during a growing economy which shows serious mismanagement of the economy. Bush in particular with the massive deregulation banking/finance industry was instrumental in creating the recession. In 2016 Hillary Clinton's disastrous 800 super delegate led campaign was historic in its impact. Talk about seizing defeat from the jaws of victory. As Edsall has stated there is the gentrifying wing of the Democrats then the rest who look for the Democrats to provide some economic justice from the out of whack accumulation of wealth by the richest. GOP will claim that going full bore in fighting climate change will hurt the US economy. The reality is that fighting climate change will lead to innovation and provide a strong stimulus to the economy.
Considering that the Bureau of Land Management HQ now shares a building with Chevron, that the USDA has lost 75% of its key employees and that we have a Republican president declaring his fully autonomous autocracy with the undying support of the GOP: why would Democrats ever be worried about overreaching? The country has no boundaries of tolerance; we'll put up with --anything--.
1
Trump won with a minority of the vote as every Republican has done since George H.W. Bush lost to Bill Clinton. The only exception is George W. Bush's second term in which he nosed out Kerry. Republicans tend to win in the House via gerrymandering and in both the House and Senate by voter suppression. What the Democrats have to do is be braver and get people to the polls.
1
The next presidential election is over a year away, and at this point we don’t know if the republic will last til the end of the month.
The Democrats are not playing political games; they’re doing their job by upholding their constitutional duty to oversee the executive branch. Meanwhile the Republicans are actively trying to do whatever they can to sabotage the next election by courting foreign interference and suppressing the vote. Trump may take a lesson from the strongmen he admires and get us into a war so he can use “national security” as an excuse for withholding information, quelling dissent, and possibly censoring the Internet. Kurds are being killed at this very instant by Turkish forces and with them our last shred of credibility or moral authority on the global stage. China is destroying free speech around the world with its money and the US is losing its power to counter that. Mass shootings and environmental catastrophes continue apace.
Worrying about the next election is like consulting with various home decorators as you decide on the best way to finally do that remodeling job you’ve been saving up for while ignoring the fact that your house is burning and the firefighters are so busy arguing among themselves about the right way to put out fires that they’ve stopped even trying to put them out.
It boils down to simple survival. If you struggle to house, clothe, feed, and care for your family, the other stuff just doesn't matter.
Forced between putting a meal on the table for my family and climate change, I'll choose the meal. Forced between keeping the old car running a bit longer and having discrimination-free bathrooms, I'll keep the car going so I can get to work. When my employer looks the other way in hiring undocumented people (and doesn't get prosecuted), the idea of open borders more than annoys me as I work against depressed wages.
Democrats - it isn't that hard. All the stuff you fight for is admirable and eventually necessary. But if I can't live NOW, it doesn't matter. So please, stop and listen. You'll get my vote but you need to earn it so the current or next Trump doesn't get elected.
5
The Democrats are vulnerable to overreach because most of them really do live in a bubble--at least if my friends are representative. They live and breathe the NYT, WaPo, The Nation, MSNBC, and other left-Dem news sources. They are also mostly college graduates and many are affiliated with universities. They do not read the National Review, City Journal, and other conservative outlets. They do not read aggregators like RealClear Politics. They literally do not comprehend Trump supporters.
My conservative friends, however, including some relatives, read mainstream Dem-leaning news sources and track Dem-leaning media. They are forced to. The media are strongly Dem-leaning. But these friends do comprehend Democrats and their opinions. They disagree, but they understand why they have the beliefs they do, and what those beliefs are.
In a way this puts them at an advantage because they are less likely to overreach.
In the end, though, it is probably true that all these roiling attempts to persuade and win are less important than the fact that historically the US electorate swings back and forth on a pendulum between Dems and Repubs. This may be disturbing to political activists, but in the big picture, this balancing act may actually be healthy and work to defeat ideological domination and monoculture.
4
The Democrats are vulnerable to overreach because most of them really do live in a bubble--at least if my friends are representative. They live and breathe the NYT, WaPo, The Nation, MSNBC, and other left-Dem news sources. They are also mostly college graduates and many are affiliated with universities. They do not read the National Review, City Journal, and other conservative outlets. They do not read aggregators like RealClear Politics. They literally do not comprehend Trump supporters.
My conservative friends, however, including some relatives, read mainstream Dem-leaning news sources and track Dem-leaning media. They are forced to. The media are strongly Dem-leaning. But these friends do comprehend Democrats and their opinions. They disagree, but they understand why they have the beliefs they do, and what those beliefs are.
In a way this puts them at an advantage because they are less likely to overreach.
In the end, though, it is probably true that all these roiling attempts to persuade and win are less important than the fact that historically the US electorate swings back and forth on a pendulum between Dems and Repubs. This may be disturbing to political activists, but in the big picture, this balancing act may actually be healthy and work to defeat ideological domination and monoculture.
2
Good stuff. An analysis that points to the 'culture war', as a trap for Democrats, is on the right path.
Could we start by defining basic terms? Some have become placeholders with no meaning. To be 'liberal' doesn't mean being Woke. Wokiness is a Puritan sensibility when you analyse it. Sure, being socially conscious is great; however, anyone who is Checking His Privilege is a Puritan hostage.
On the other hand, liberality embraces ambiguity, some risk, and distrust of dogmas. Same goes for 'political correctness', which is not a synonym, repeat, not a synonym, for being polite and inclusive. PC discourse is coercive, arbitrary, top-down, and often intolerant. That's what an electorate fears when it falls prey to the Donald Trumps.
4
We know exactly what the Republican line of attack is going to be: socialism. So Democrats, in order to win, need to not allow that word to be the defining narrative of the 2020 campaigns.
Ms. Warren , now perhaps the most likely winner of the nomination is not a socialist, nor is Europe, they are social democratic, encouraging private enterprise but recognizing that corporate power must be limited in the interests of the general welfare. This idea is not new. In the words of John Winthrop:
"All the parts of this body being thus united are made so contiguous in a special relationship as they must needs partake of each other’s strength and infirmity, joy and sorrow, weal and woe”
The commonwealth was intrinsic to their idea of Christianity. Modern Republicanism is contrary to the ethics of even the Puritans.
I hear so many of my democratic friends say we can't win with socialism. That may be true but what democrats will be offering for the most part isn't socialism but a more widely beneficial form of capitalism. Therein lies the quintessential weakness of the left, allowing the right to dictate the terms of the conversation. Change that and democrats can and will win.
1
"Democrats did not do enough when they were in power to tackle the rise in inequality, inadequate education and health care, stagnant wages, and declining communities..."
So the logic response is to hand power to the party who's primary mission is giving tax cuts to the rich and end Obamacare?
1
"Democrats did not do enough when they were in power to tackle the rise in inequality, inadequate education and health care, stagnant wages, and declining communities that would, in time, create a frustrated electorate — all too ready to elect a Donald Trump in 2016." and whose fault was that if not the obstructionist GOP? And the Obama dawn (economic recovery) did happen... just in time for Trump to take the credit. But you are correct, the Republicans can still win selling their lies to rust belt America, at least until the Dems have enough votes in the House and Senate to eliminate the electorial college.
Generally love your work Thomas. One of the better efforts by you I've read. Thank you.
1
Incursions in both directions, urban to rural, rural to urban are continuing as they always have with gradual progress in achieving accommodation in lifestyle. Social & cultural change will accrue gradually in the pockets of resistance.
Keeping people happy with economic progress leading to better lives is accepted in every quarter. It's the economy. That's never stupid.
Saying what you believe is not "overreach". What you accomplish can be overreach but can only happen after all have been heard and voted. Remember how the ACA went down.
1
Mr. Edsall lost his argument when he asked, "Will they raise taxes on the middle classes to pay the costs, say, of Medicare for all?" Were he intellectually honest, he would have asked, "Will progressive Democrats finally give middle-income Americans something they need for the taxes they pay?" For too long, the middle class has paid tax to benefit everybody else -- both the poor and the rich -- and been left alone to cover their own costs for healthcare, college, childcare, elder care, and a dignified retirement. That's why "tax" is a dirty word to them. That's why Republicans can always get their votes by promising "tax cuts" and nothing else. A dedicated "tax" that pays for something of real value that everybody needs -- health care -- is different from a tax that disappears into a multi-trillion-dollar federal budget and is never seen again in the family budgets of middle-income working people. Health insurance and medical care are not free, except to the poor and destitute covered by middle-income taxpayers' taxes. The rest of us must pay for it, one way or another. The only questions are, who do we pay, how much and what do we get? When we get that straight, Medicare for All will have the best answers for the middle-class.
2
"the inability of the Obama administration to ameliorate the devastating consequences of the 2008 economic meltdown in much of rural and small-town America contributed to the 2016 swing to Trump in working- and middle-class districts that had voted for Obama"
Let me get this straight - the majority of people in rural and small-town America vote Republican - those Republicans all voted against the 2009 recovery bill (ARRA) - those voters blame the Democrats for the consequences of their support for the GOP. Clear as mud.
7
"Democrats did not do enough when they were in power to tackle the rise in inequality, inadequate education and health care, stagnant wages, and declining communities that would, in time, create a frustrated electorate — all too ready to elect a Donald Trump in 2016."
2010.
That was the "moment" when the Democrats lost, even though they still held the WH, they lost the voters they needed to keep power, which ultimately led to 2016. That the DNC and party leaders didn't recognize this underscores how out of touch they had become with ordinary people, the people that the Democratic Party used to call its backbone.
But long before 2010, in fact with the rise of Bill Clinton, the Dems had turned their backs on the working and middle class, and began focusing on the wishes of the donor class, Wall St., and Corporate America. When Bush's "wars of choice" were launched, how many Democrats stood against them? Hardly any. And who were the Americans who died and sacrificed in these wars? Children of the working, middle class, and the poor. When the Crash came, who got bailed out? Wall St. and the banksters, while Main St. lost their homes and pensions. And who did the DNC anoint to run in 2016? Hilary, Queen of Wall St. and the Status Quo!
If the Dems want to regain power, let alone hegemony, they'd better return to their FR-New Deal Roots, and focus on toppling the oligarchic system we've had for decades. That's how they'll then be able to work on the other things.
5
The Democratic Party could become much larger, and the GOP much smaller, and the GOP could continue to hold the reigns of power because of the profoundly antidemocratic structural advantages the Rural Party (GOP) enjoys thanks to our Constitution: the Electoral College, geographic sorting and wasted votes, equal state suffrage in the senate guaranteed by Article V, and SCOTUS allowed voter suppression and gerrymandering.
In a one-person, one-vote system the Democrats would already be in power. These antidemocratic structural advantages could allow a combative and resentful rural minority to (at worst) rule the roost for decades longer or (at best) block any meaningful change for generations. In the resultant power vacuum and 'vetocracy' that we've become, who really benefits? The oligarchy.
3
It is far too early to even be talking about the candidates. Major political campaigns used to begin months prior to an election. Now, it is years before. As soon as a president is elected, they begin campaigning for their next term. It reminds me of commercialism in holidays. Companies begin marketing months prior to the date; Christmas, Thanksgiving, Halloween, Valentines Day, etc. This is outrageous!
i can't read a coterie of academics all agreeing in principle without asking whether they agree because they all read the same journals and have the same social structural outlook, or because there's hard data to support their views?
no hard data in this article.
then, as i read it, the choice seems to be either to avoid being so extreme that you can't get elected, or avoid being so extreme that you can't get a policy consensus when you are elected. well, which is it? or are they just the same litmus test of two very different solutions?
it's all rather astonishing. there's no longer rational policy analysis, sober scenario forecasting, care for the future or concern for the health of the nation. it's all about what academics think an academic future should look like and "electoral ski tip" advice to careerist politicians using policy debates to sculpt their lucrative lobbyist future.
leadership is fundamentally an educating and eliciting role; thucydides' rendering of pericles' funeral oration is a classic and unsurpassed model, so is lincoln's second inaugural address, so are many of the speeches by teddy and franklin.
what we have instead is the appearance of party hacks calculating the focus group tuned buzzwords that will scare or lure some the cattle away from the other guy's herd.
our political discourse has devolved into cattle rustling. policies that work, problems that must be solved, the path forward into the future?
meh.
1
This election is all about returning some semblance of economic security to the middle and working classes, along with addressing corruption and climate change, period. And only bold programs will achieve the results we desperately need: universal health care, however that is achieved; student loan debt forgiveness and more affordable college and trade schools moving forward; and more affordable early child care, all funded mainly by taxes on the wealthy. This will also begin to address economic disparity, and the issues that dog rural areas of America. The right candidates must frame these solutions in terms Americans understand and can get fired up about: not socialism, but progressive capitalism; not more government, but a platform from which to prosper; not less freedom, but more!
1
Whenever the Republicans are in crazy town as they are now with Trump, the Dems make the conclusion the antidote is it’s time to go to the far left wall on issues like taxation, free education, free health care, etc. We are still a center-right country that is unique because we allow business and entrepreneurs to flourish without crushing them or forming a corrupt elite as they have in Russia and China. I will never understand why Dems bash the business community which has provided the resources to allow this country to be built to where we
are after 250 years. Fundamentally, we have a battle between those who think an economy is a zero-sum game played out within the borders of a country and those who believe we have a future of endless global growth and opportunity we should not hesitate to seize. Democrats who recognize this opportunity, helping all to participate plus developing and selling solutions to deal with the climate change crisis will be winners. We do not have the luxury of emphasizing political correctness or First-World Problemitis in a competitive global
Economy.
4
What's left out of this story is the fact the Republican policy is shaped by conservative elites who care not one iota whether their constituency has clean air and water, has decent employment opportunities, has access to a quality education, is able to feed or care for their children, has affordable healthcare coverage and so on.
They will do what they can to keep their base energized no matter what lies they must tell. If members of their base are struggling, it must be their fault, rather than the faults of conservative elites who work to pad their own bottom lines through tax cuts on the wealthy, incentives for doing business overseas, tax havens, reducing funding for education, removing environmental protections so the GOP elites can bank more money while destroying the health of locals, promoting corporate welfare (so more tax dollars are funneled to the elite) and making people believe they aren't worth $15 an hour or $10 or even $8.
By making it difficult for their poor to have access to affordable healthcare, public services and a decent education, their constituency finds it easy to believe that they could not possibly benefit from wide-reaching programs, and instead believe the lie that it would all come out of their own bottom line.
On a different note, I think political correctness ought to be required of public officials regardless of what is popular. Elected officials have a duty to serve all Americans, not the sliver that forms their base.
1
As everyone knows, the 2020 election will be decided in a few key states -- Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Arizona, Iowa and maybe Florida, North Carolina, and Texas. Piling up millions more votes for Democrats in New York, New England, and the West Coast is irrelevant to deciding the election.
My impression is that the Democrats who will decide on the nominee in primaries and caucuses are to the left, on average, of voters in the key states. The strong plurality like the Sanders/Warren policies, which will not lead to electoral vote victory for the Democrats.
In short, Biden has a lot of problems, but he can easily beat Trump, and Warren or Sanders can't.
3
@Benjamin II Hillary is not averse to jumping back in. And she thinks she can win, again. If Joe stumbles and Warren doesn't become a strong number 1, Hillary will take a do over. Don't expect her to ask. Now that, is over reaching.
I'm waiting for the Democratic National Committee to swiftly change their agenda. I want them to advise their candidates to come out swinging against Trump and for now stop with their pie in the sky remedies like forgiving student debt, Medicare for all, green initiatives, etc. I want them to start questioning the Presidential son-in law about HIS dealings with foreign governments while "working" on behalf of the President. Start asking how Mitch McConnell's wife, who is Secretary of Transportation, still hasn't divested from her family's gains in China regarding transportation deals. Start asking the President if he's such a great deal maker and businessman how did 4 of his businesses go bankrupt. Stop pussyfooting and put Trump on the defensive!
3
Paul Begala: “I am deeply concerned about Democratic presidential candidates getting too far over their ski tips.”
Some smart Democratic candidate needs to hire Begala to keep the candidate grounded and from overreaching. Humor is a key here, especially since Trump, Pence, McConnell, and lots of purist GOP politicians don't have any sense of humor. Neither do the PCers.
Belgala is absolutely right that the Democrats need to remind people that if kept in office, Trump, McConnell, and the entire GOP have every intention of scraping Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Trump & the GOP have also undermined every good thing our government does for people and the planet, and in fostering good will around the world.
Personal judgement is another key factor for the Democratic candidates, and this is where many have problems connecting with the voters.
Much as I admire Warren and Bernie, it was a mistake to talk about reforming health care by taking away all private health insurance, because some people really like theirs and unions bargained away a lot just to get reliable, decent health insurance coverage. A Dem candidate should know that.
Emphasize the issues that many Americans agree need to be fixed: infrastructure, protecting the earth, a better life for our children, the need to share and a fairer distribution of wealth.
Be a person of character who represents the best qualities of our country: smart, practical, optimistic, friendly, caring, thoughtful
5
Nope, it's simply about power, and the will to get it. The Republicans have that will. The Democrats are just a bunch of argumentative teenagers by comparison. Don't be surprised if the GOP adopt policies that completely counter what they pretend to stand for, in the pursuit of continued power. The current populism is simply the current policy. They could easily appeal to conservative Hispanic voters if they needed to. They could put welfare state policies in place if that would get them elected, just as long as their moneyed friends were on board. Power, that's all it is.
1
Dem legislative failures under Obama were, in most cases, a direct result of Republican obstruction led by Mitch McConnell, something pundits like Mr. Edsall consistently fail to note.
2
@Mark Merrill - What about his failure to prosecute any of the architects of the 2008 recession? He didn't need Congressional support to do that.
The public seems favorable to most of the policies promoted by Sanders and Warren but we shouldn't take too many risks. Let's talk about all the things that the bad Republicans want to take away. Plus political correctness is a problem. That's why we need Joe Biden.
1
The Democratic party's best long-term bet is to hope that President Trump wins reelection. Then, either one of two things will occur: the US will become a full-on dictatorship, with the Constitution discarded and the rule of law nonexistent; or things in the country will become worse and worse, probably with an economic downturn and possible fiscal crisis, and the chaos of an impulsive, egotistical and viciously angry ruler will turn a solid majority against him and the Republicans who are his lackeys and worshippers.
If Trump is reelected, the 2018 Democratic wave will become a tsunami in 2022 (provided fair elections still exist) and they will take the White House again in 2024 against the Republican candidates (presumably Donald Trump Jr.) with a clear progressive mandate.
If a Democrat is elected in 2020, the party will probably lose the House in the 2022 election just as it did after the first two years of Clinton and Obama.
That is the silver lining when Trump squeaks through next November with a minority of the popular vote but an Electoral College majority.
I’m a progressive but I’ll vote for a moderate Democrat because she’ll have a better chance of winning.
4
I admire Mr. Edsall's fine writing, always presented on a foundation of meticulous research. But America is beyond advising Democrats to modify tactics - Sawhill advises setting achievable economic policy - as desperation approaches. Our nation's ability to protect its democratic structure has been tested to the limit by a corrupt Donald Trump and found to be hollow.
Congress resembles a substitute teacher presenting a grammar lesson to a classroom of unruly middle school kids near the end of a school day. Mr. Nadler: "Honor this subpoena or else!" Trump appointee: "Or else what Mr. Nadler?"
Trump and his gang scorn the the Constitution and if 'no man is above the law' how long before groups of citizens adopt Trump's defiance of legal orders, subpoenas, summonses, and warrants? Trump has rolled us into his ideal of an authoritarian regime where he is 'Boss,' and chaos reigns.
1
In referencing a study to discuss support for Democratic ideas, why did the author select support for "political correctness" (a highly subjective term) rather than something more concrete, such as specific policies or for racial or gender equality? "Political correctness" is hardly the defining feature of Democratic politics.
The author suggests that Democrats are alienating low-income voters by focusing on "social and cultural issues." However, top issues among Democrats now are health care & gun safety -- very much pocketbook / kitchen-table issues -- & Democratic proposals poll very favorably among US voters. Honestly, I would argue that Republicans are the ones focusing on "social & cultural issues" such as "traditional" families, anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, and anti-immigrant rhetoric -- issues meant evoke a strong emotional response -- without proposing any policies that actually address substantive issues in people's lives (such as health care costs, housing costs, living wages, etc.).
The author gets around to noting that the people of the country are moving leftward -- but then goes on to caution the Democratic party against moving with them. This sounds like a lot of the same rhetoric we always hear -- when Republicans squeak out a narrow victory, it is a "mandate" to implement far-right policies, but when Democrats win, it is a warning to not go to far. Why is it we are always supposed to listen to the people telling us to clip our wings?
2
@April Agreed on the insanity of the whole "political correctness" charge. I could say I'm opposed to political correctness, but what I mean is that the students at Wesleyan and Oberlin sometimes go a little too far as they struggle to form their political identities. That's annoying, but then being annoying is part of the job of late adolescence.
What Trump means by getting rid of political correctness is babies in cages, cops killing black people, and apparently now locking up people with mental illnesses. That's a whole different ballgame.
The only issue that’ll tilt moderates toward Democrats in 2020 is the circus in the Whitehouse.
After that, it’ll be back to overreaching on both sides and self-destruction.
The Left’s stand on moral truths can be as problematic as the Right’s depending on the issue at hand.
There’s nothing noble about Ilhan Omar’s or Rashida Tlaib or AOC’s support for jihadists. They’re trying to justify violence and mistreatment of women among radical Islamists using Islamophobia as a bait.
Just look at where UK’s Labour Party is.
Left’s intolerance toward speech they don’t agree with is another moral issue.
There is no candidate who transcends identity politics to define American identity based on universal values as the primary glue for citizenship.
4
Too late to prevent any overreaching. Democrats' over the top obsession of hatred towards this president has made their overreaching highly predictable.
4
The finger-wagging PC crowd and the angry, aggrieved right-wing bigots may be extremists and true-believers at opposite ends of the political ideological spectrum, but they share a similar aggressive, rejectionist, obstinate, domineering, and rude style. It's my way or the highway for both groups.
Both groups are the purifiers of the earth, out to rid the world of people they disagree with and/or do not like, and on whom they heap scorn. They, like Trump, generally make enemies not friends.
The PCers consider themselves and smarter than everyone else as well as the gatekeepers of what is acceptable and what is not, and while they probably believe they are fighting for civility, they, like the bigots, are behaving in uncivilized, highly inconsiderate, and intolerant ways.
What we need--and what the Republicans can no longer do and the Democrats can provide--is to get away from ideological politics a la Reagan's phony wealthy business conservatism based on false premises (trickle-down, deregulation, free-market at the expense of society) and restore pragmatism and character to our presidency and politics.
The 1960s wore itself out with its ideology and bravado, and now the right-wing is doing the same with the exhausting, destructive Trump regime.
Democrats need to focus on the basics of our neglected society. What is government for? Fix the infrastructure, education, health care, economic stagnation of the 90%... No pie in the sky reforms yet. Decency, caring, truth
3
Here's a topic the Dems could lose on - Medicare for All. Why?
1 - no supermajority in the Senate
2 - GOP will (accurately) point out it would mean most Americans would give up their current health insurance. People are more afraid of losing something then they are eager for getting some unknown replacement.
Yet in the 2018 elections, three Red states voted to expand Medicare.
So baby steps are far more likely to pass than grand sweeping gestures. Why not fill in the healthcare gaps for people who can't get coverage now, and figure how to aid people hurt by the rough edges where Obamacare subsidies don't quite hit?
Even Obama had a wish list for improvements.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/14/upshot/obama-on-obamacares-flaws-an-assessment.html
1
Hillary lost, that surprised everyone.
Then came the coup attempt.
Based on a fabricated dossier.
That begot the 4 FISA warrants.
They begot the Special Prosecutor.
The SP report did not have any or at least not enough to impeach.
Now we have the Ukraine phone call.
A whistle blower has hearsay knowledge.
Schiff demands transcripts.
Trump releases the transcript.
It's not like Schiff's interpretation.
A second whistle blower comes forward. Why?
We have the transcripts.
Pelosi is backed into a corner, declares impeachment inquiry.
Schiff subpoenas State Dept. info.
Trump says no.
Pelosi says we'll impeach.
Trump say do it.
I would say the Democrats have already over reached. If the Democrats vote to impeach, they can no longer block Republican involvement. The Russian Collusion hoax is about to re-write this whole story. The Democrat politicos know this will not end well, for them. Democrat voters are about to find out how they were scammed for the last 3 years.
And the punch line to this joke is Hillary. "Don't tempt me."
4
Some people really do believe the world is flat. Nothing a sane person says to them matters. Trump is obviously the most corrupt person to ever live in the White House.
How some people continue to defend him defies common sense.
@BBH Trump is corrupt? If he is, then the Democrats, Schiff and Nadler, are incompetent. That is the only explanation for this story lasting as long as it has. And I don't see anyone injecting a dose of competency into the Democrats, anytime soon.
You must be joking. The Republican Party nominated and elected a president who campaigned on and then implemented policies that are racist, sexist, homophobic, religiously biased, science denying and undeniably cruel to our poorest citizens and you worry about overreaching? You mention "social and cultural issues". euphemistically pleasant terms that cover up racism and hatred of anyone not a White Christian. Articles like yours minimize the horrors of the current administration. Please focus on what needs to be changes. Do not worry about whether Democrats can survive after creating essential change.
3
There is only one possible Democratic policy that has the potential to turn a can't-lose election into a catastrophic loss: promising to force 150 million American families with private health care into M4A with no choice in the matter. Many voters may be sympathetic to Democrats, or even be regular Democratic voters, and still not be willing to bet their family's health coverage on a promise. The crazy part is that a voluntary pubic option would be both a more popular and more realistic pathway to fundamental reform. Greenberg asks: "Do you really think the Democratic nominee is going to be running on Medicare for All....?" I say, please, Elizabeth, give us a signal that you won't!
3
The democrats have moved way too far to the extreme left. Their behavior has been unethical and shameful. I voted for Obama the first time...hated the results and voted for Mitt. When Trump came along I had my doubts so did not vote for him.....I didn't want another Clinton or Bush so Hillary was a non starter for me. My life has improved so much under Trump that I will gladly vote for him 2020, both as a reward for him keeping promises and as a hit against the stupidity, lies and constant hatred coming from the democrats in the last three years. The dems really need better leadership and positive message.
3
@John Diamond - How, exactly, has your life improved under Trump? Serious question. And is it all about how your life has improved - not about how others have been impacted?
What promises has he kept?
The “moving too far” “problem” is the solution. On the one hand, you write that Obama did not help ordinary people in 2008-12, and then you warn against moving left. But moving left means redistribution to those very people. Your idea that it’s dangerous to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for health care is a chimera. What about the $12k/year “tax” in the form of insurance premiums and income the middle class doesn’t get because employers just pay the premium? And that’s for health care that makes you fight for coverage you thought you had. Obamacare is a quarter step. Obama bailed out the banks, not the little underwater mortgage holders. That didn’t work for them and it didn’t work politically. Stop being afraid.
There is only one method (?) that a significant and crucial tranche of Americans use to decide on who they will vote for: Do I trust the person, and do I like them?
They liked George Bush Jr. and didn't like Gore or trust the Democrats. They liked Obama after they stopped trusting the GOP, stopped liking W , but didn't like McCain. They didn't like or trust Hillary and they tried someone else. That a significant number of Obama voters switched to Trump is proof that policy makes little difference in their decisions. It's purely animal spirits caught at a key, unpredictable moment of meme driven virality.
Trump is a liar, incompetent, a weakling, and corrupt as the day is long. He's also a creep and twitter-troll. He lied about healthcare, fumbled a fix to immigration, and caved to Kim, Putin and Erdogan. He's used his office for personal profit, attacked the free press and continues to block and obstruct legitimate investigations.
This will either crystallize in a viral moment close to Nov. 8 or not; or a version of it will crystallize for his opponent.
The only sure thing Democrats can count on is turning out their base in higher numbers in Dayton, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Madison, Detroit, Philadelphia, etc. that's a far less heavy lift than the impossible task of trying to figure out what's in the heads of Obama/Trump voters who are frankly unfathomable, this article notwithstanding.
1
Democrats are under reaching if anything.
What you meant to say is that - How do Democrats control the perception of overreach within right wing media.
It's not worth trying..
We have almost treasonous government enabled by #MoscowMitch.. it must be stopped from destroying what we have build after WW II.
Let's focus on what is good for America and rest all should be fine.
1
The Democrats have kept themselves from overreaching for 2 1/2 years. The time for that has passed
Keep the Dems from overreaching?
Too late.
3
Are you kidding me ??? How is “ overreaching “ even possible, against the Trump Charade ? His Barrel is truly bottomless, there’s nowhere to go, but UP.
Seriously.
4
Here we go again: "The Democrats Must Not Go Too Far Left".
Not on climate change.
Not on inequality.
Not on (fill in the blank).
There is one other asymmetry here: right wing media like Fox, Sinclair, talk radio, etc. They keep shoving the Overton Window hard right as far as it will go.
Meanwhile mainstream media like the Times picks up their talking points and legitimizes them, while resisting efforts to shift the window back in the other direction. They constantly worry that Democrats will go too far, will over reach - while normalizing ever more extreme actions by the right.
"My goodness! Hunter Biden took advantage of his family name to get a well-paid position with a company looking to gain influence in Washington. Dear me!"
Meanwhile, the Trump family is cashing in everywhere, the emoluments clause is a joke, and Donald Trump is pimping his daughter Ivanka as a top diplomat at international meetings? Where's the concern from the Times on that?
IOKIYAR.
2
Trump and his GOP enablers are the ones who are "overreaching" with their lies and fabrications.
The Democrats are obviously the wise adults in the room.
We will salvage our nation from Trump's mess.
1
Over reach is only one side of the equation.
The other side is a party that refuses to learn.
What has the Democratic Party been willing to learn from the defeat of Hillary? Nothing.
It should have been such a blow out that it carried the House and Senate with it. It should have been so one-sided that no meddling could have made the slightest difference. Hillary herself said so before the election.
Yet we see excuses. We see denial (She won!). We see abuse of the voters. We see everything but lessons, and rejection by the establishment of everyone like Bernie or Warren who might be the lessons.
Worry about over-reaching with impeachment? Long before we get to that, worry about failure to reach for any lessons learned.
2
Trump won his first term based almost entirely on the fact he was running against Clinton. I see no possibility of a second term for Trump. Primarily because many folks who voted for anyone but Clinton will now vote for anyone but Trump. I am one of these voters.
1
The Democrats' problem recently is that they have UNDERreached. I remember Michael Dukakis merely promoting "competence" before finally admitting reluctantly that, yes, he was a liberal.
Even with the landmark ACA, they started going for half a loaf and ended up with maybe one-eighth of it. They couldn't even muster a public option.
If the Dems went for the Gold, they would have a good chance of getting the Silver.
10:00 EDT, 10/09
During the 2016 election, on one of the cable news shows, I saw an interview with a man from the Midwest. In it he said words to the effect of 'My entire town is out of work, and all they care about is who uses which bathroom.' Democrats need to keep this guy in mind in prioritizing issues, and if they do they will be fine. Said another way, it's still the economy, stupid. But it is making the economy work for everyone that matters.
4
@Bob23 Democrats would have spent about 10 minutes on bathrooms if Republicans hadn't chosen to make them the Issue of the Century out of sheer spite.
Kids who are required to go to school need to have a place to use the toilet while they are there. That applies even if they are unusual in some way and at risk of getting beaten up. That's an actual problem, but one that could be solved as a technocratic matter without fundamentally upending the structure of society.
Except the Republicans decided to go to war over it. It's on them.
1
Enough already! Here is what is going to happen, and there is too much focus on 2020, because there is something bigger afoot. Yes, it is the Progressives. And it is all about economics. PC is a side issue. The Republican policies of the last 40 years have completely failed the middle class. And the Republicans offer no new ideas. In the face of their failure the party has gone completely dirty, disintegrating into demagoguery and threatening totalitarianism (and that is big loser). The Democratic establishment has more or less signed on to the status quo and the Republican economic "pro-growth" neoliberal agenda, differing only marginally on how much to tax the rich. The only substantial difference between centrist Democrats and Republicans is on pesky social issues (Hillary banked her whole campaign on this marginal issue). So Democratic centrists also offer no new ideas. The only ones with even any ideas at all about how to fix things (i.e. reestablish the middle class, bring the working class back into the middle class) are the Democratic Progressives. So irregardless of what happens in 2020, the Progressives are going to continue to gain support and will take over in the next several election cycles, because things are only going to get worse under center right policy. That is my Nate Silver projection.
1
If politics were a poker game (and in a lot of ways that's how it is), Republicans would have a great poker face and know how to play for the entire evening. Democrats would play each hand as if it were the jackpot, and Trump would deal from under the deck.
I'm happy that the Dems are all over the map with their different positions. It is a welcome relief to the lockstep Republicans. An engaged discussion of policies is what defines representational democracy. But I have a hard time with the implicit cynicism of establishing blocks of voters and voter types to win or capture. If voters get a whiff that sort of condescension, they'll turn on you fast - HRC anyone. And voters will surprise you - DJT anyone.
I will vote for a person who has a vision, conviction, and heart. I believe that is how most people vote. IMHO, leaders lead, and then followers follow, and I say that without a value judgement. My advice to Dems is pretty simple - lead - and let the people decide. Have faith in us.
In polls and in the calculations of most politicians there is a premise that the voter is a statistically predictable commodity- even when that predictability involves deliberately voting against their own best interests (protest/anger votes).
In one sense this is validated because at least one set of predictions will come true- a pure tautology. In another sense, based on the success of Wall Street Advertising, the political Big Lie, etc. consumers and buyers do seem to to be predictable- and therefore vulnerable to being gamed and manipulated.
In my view, there may be something relatively unquantifiable- a gestalt that marks a period in history. Where voter's will have to make a fundamental decision on what constitutes reality. On what is important. Sadly many make these decisions in a vacuum of ignorance. And those stuffed with information have difficulty separating disinformation from truth- all a deliberate ploy by those who play them.
We are at that pivot point. This is why truth telling by politicians- actual truth telling- is pivotal. The voter's now need context and anchoring. They need to know who they can trust and why.
I have no doubt that Trump and the Republican Party are on a steady path to dissolution- as their economic plans unravel and they become more desperate and tragically for the country- dangerous. This will become increasingly clear to the electorate. And if they vote- the outcome is clear- enough.
What the NYT opinion writers and a bunch of quoted professors believe is irrelevant. What matters is the opinion of voters in just a few key states. And I firmly believe that the democrats have already over-reached in terms of proposed policy.
Sorry - but your average voter in Michigan or Wisconsin doesn’t want open borders, a green new deal, or any number of anti-growth and anti-business policies pitched by the democrats.
69
@Jason - well, nobody pitched open borders.
But with job growth in the renewables and efficiency industries outperforming much of the rest of the economy, helping our energy transition should be a winner. For example, wind farms are a safe way for rural landowners and counties to get some revenue that isn't affected by the increasingly-unpredictable weather changes that fossil fuel use is causing.
https://www.awea.org/resources/news/2016/wind-power-pays-$222-million-a-year-to-rural-lando
Of course, it was just awesome that the GOP reduced those "burdensome" safety standards that protect miners. And that they try taking away healthcare access. And reduced those "burdensome" pollution laws to protect people and jobs in the fishing industry. Make America Gasp Again is what you want, I guess.
36
@Jason
Funny. I recall Trump promising to repeal Obamacare and replace it with a health care system that would cover everyone at far less cost. His tax plan was supposed to hurt people like him and help the middle class. His trade policies were going to bring back good paying manufacturing jobs to the heartland. Unlike most Republicans, he said he supported Social Security and Medicare. Wish he had overreached to achieve any of these promises, but come to find our his fingers were crossed behind his back.
45
@Jason
Here you go again! Which democratic candidate is for open borders? or for that matter anti-growth and anti-business? The green new deal will create the jobs of the future and at the same time slow global warming. Doing nothing - like the present administration- will in the ensuing years subject Americans to an economically devastating survival battle they will likely loose, along with the rest of humanity, as our resources will be increasingly deployed addressing environment-caused health threats and holding back the onslaught of a rising sea, devastating storms, draughts and wildfires, not to mention millions of refugees trying to escape these scourges. I hope you are inquisitive enough to figure this out by yourself.
31
This column raises many important points and provides important statistical data for Democrats to ponder. As an historian of the US with more than forty years experience, I was struck by how similar the recommendations suggested in the column resembled FDR's programs in the 1930s and 1940s. He paid attention to both rural and urban problems, with solutions that put people to work on important projects, such as rural electrification, developing regional power sources (TVA), conservation work (CCC), and industrial and other development (WPA), and similar programs for housing and infrastructure. These programs bettered Americans' lives and have analogs in the present, such as expanding broadband, renewable energy projects, affordable housing, and repairing and further developing infrastructure.
The only differences I see really that matter are ones of demographic limitation. Some Democrats (mostly urban or suburban elites) speak and write about abandoning whole swaths of the country because they believe that they are hopelessly Republican. Roosevelt showed that he could unite all of the country by reaching out to all of it. Some candidates talk of uniting the country but don't seem to know how to do it other than by oratorical flourishes. That is how they lost in 2016. The opportunity afforded the Democrats in 2020 is big, if we know what to do with it.
Read some history. Then get to work. Fix things for all Americans, not just the few with whom you are comfortable.
3
If you're a Democrat itching for impeachment, you better hope the Democrats slow down if they have any hope of speeding up.
Right now the nation is standing here with our mouths agape at the abuse of power being used by Nancy Pelosi and the obvious collusion by putting this into the Intel Committee when it belongs in Judiciary. Just because Pelosi doesn't trust Nadler doesn't mean she gets to set the rules.
The U.S. Constitution is very clear that the HOUSE determines an impeachment inquiry, not ONE MEMBER of the House, which Pelosi is.
If you want a serious understanding of this, I suggest reading Andrew McCarthy's piece this weekend on the National Review. As a former lead prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, he's got a deep understanding of the Constitution and the law..and right now Pelosi has chosen a path that will not end well for Democrats, which means this is the only play the Democrats have for 2020 since the economy is rocking..and every metric in every demographic (women, minorities, etc..) are tremendous.
Warren wants to nationalize our insurance and banking industries and ban fossil fuels (if you ban fracking..we' have to go back to coal in a big way fast..and our CO2 output is going to increase by about 50% a year).
She's already lost MN, CT, RI and PA, MI, and OH. New England is buying their natural gas and energy from Russia...since their leaders refuse to acknowledge reality and allow pipelines or fracking.
Impeachment is their only play.
3
While the seat-of-the-pants impulsiveness of Donald Trump is nearly always wrong – especially when it is accompanied by bigotry and financial self-dealing – the tendency of intellectuals like Thomas B. Edsall to think several steps ahead is usually unproductive.
With the ongoing impeachment inquiry in the Democrat-controlled House, it is premature to worry about (1) losing the impeachment battle and then (2) winning the 2020 election, thereby ousting Donald Trump, and then (3) overreaching by trying to punish Republicans and then (4) ignoring legitimate concerns across America about how business is done traditionally in Washington.
Let’s proceed with impeachment, guided by a focus on what can be called “the gag reflex.” In other words, when Donald Trump does something outrageous, like selling Ukraine down the river to Russia to please Vladimir Putin and to gain a personal advantage, many of the average voters who previously viewed Trump as a badly needed man of action, will gag and understand that they have been conned.
We ought to give that a chance to happen.
Is this really what is called for at this moment? The most brazenly criminal president in the history of the United States, surrounded by a pack of co-conspirators is thumbing his nose at the Constitution and claiming to be above the law. He is supported by greedy, shamelessly hypocritical and ethically bankrupt Republicans. Is using questionable reasoning to fear-monger about overreach what the nation needs?
Ms. Sawhill wrote that, under Obama, Democrats did not do enough to address the rise in inequality and stagnant wages and lost the working class in the process, but hers and your nonsensical conclusion is to warn against doing enough? Should Democrats desperately try to coddle the rich again? Protect Wall Street? Protect the fossil fuel industry? Protect all big money interests and cede the populist vote to Trump, just like Clinton did in 2016? Ridiculous.
Sanders and Warren are exactly what the country needs right now.
1
Another button that Trump pushed was the issue of illegal immigration. The Democrats need to become much more responsive to the economic issues related to immigration if they are to win over more sane Republicans. I'm not talking about pandering to the rabid xenophoges, but taking into account the costs of admitting millions of undocumented migrants.
3
One Democratic policy change will send Trump packing, and without that change Trump may win: No more illegal immigration. Accept that principle, propose effective policies to limit "undocumented" border crossers, agree to deal with those immigrants already here later, and the Democratic voters who defected to Trump will come back to any reasonably acceptable Democratic candidate.
Americans do not hate immigrants. They hate lawbreakers and line-jumpers. Democratic support for lawlessness is a deal breaker for millions of voters. They recognize the subterfuge in the use of the word "undocumented" to sidestep what appears to the masses as support for open borders and flouting of immigration law.
4
The idea that it's more progressive to push for social issues and ignore economics is inherently flawed. I'm a far left progressive and I think that the democratic party has focused too much on social/cultural issues and sat back and relied too much on demographic shifts.
As we become a majority minority country, majority minorities are going to become wealthier and more conservative. That doesn't really benefit the policy proposals of the left any more than white America does.
We need to get back to our roots and focus on economic policy, inequality, and infrastructure. We need to enhance social security, which is too low to live on today, enact universal health care, build massive high speed rail and subway projects across America, and offer free public education at public universities. We need to build big public programs that 99% of Americans use and rely on for daily life, so we're all in the same boat and fighting for the same things.
Social and cultural progress is extremely important, and the best way to influence it is to make a broad and relatively equal middle class. That is what is truly progressive.
2
Medicare for All is what Warren and progressives like myself want. I am a surgeon. If that is what you call targeted elites, then great, the entire civilized world is elite then, as too numerous to count nations have some form of nationalized healthcare system, which covers all citizens regardless of color, income, wealth, in sickness or in health, equally and fairly.
145
@Time - Space
While you and others are certainly entitled to want Medicare-for-all, I cannot and will not vote for a candidate that supports it. I am a registered Independent and count myself as slightly left of center on many social issues. But I become a one-issue voter on healthcare. I am all in favor of a public option, like Obamacare. But try and take away my choice to continue to access my private employer sponsored healthcare and I will fight you every step of the way. Per the NYT's own reporting, at least 55% of voters are opposed to medicare-for-all. Pushing for it now would be giving Donald Trump yet another area to hammer the Democratic nominee. It's a mistake.
16
@Time - Space
Ironically you are simply confirming the thesis of the article.
The most recent Commonwealth poll finds support for Medicare For All absent a private insurance option is a strikingly low 27%.
The very definition of a losing policy initiative.
12
@SteveRR And a Morning Consult poll shows that 55% support Medicare for All and the elimination of private insurance if people can retain access to their doctors. The key issue is access to providers, not private insurance. https://morningconsult.com/2019/07/02/majority-backs-medicare-for-all-replacing-private-plans-if-preferred-providers-stay/
11
Limits do not seem to be the inclination of those shooting for such a high office. The Democrats are all promising things which are very challenging and will be very hard and unpleasant to endure while implementing if they are to be made real. Since they have not existed in the real world, they may fail. But they are so excited by their imaginations that they just don’t consider what the difficulties will be.
1
Have you noticed that those warning of Democratic "overreach" are the centrists and the plutocrats? Begala's party is the one that deregulated Wall Street and the telecoms, rammed through NAFTA and reformed "welfare as we know it" - all contributing to the most extreme wealth inequality in modern history.
The Democratic Party is increasingly the party of the rich, and the rich usually get what they want in the way of policy. Thus they rail against such egalitarian measures as Medicare For All while championing LGBT rights and the inclusion of a few select historically oppressed "identities" in their boardrooms and corner offices. They sell us a more diverse oligarchy as a substitute for true racial, gender and economic justice.
They are loath to even mention such a thing as the class war.
The media, meanwhile, gives us wall-to-wall impeachment coverage as it mainly ignores how hard most of our lives are. We're supposed to care about "Ukraine-gate" and not notice that Trump once again is cutting food stamps, and that he just signed an executive order further privatizing Medicare.
Many Trump voters actually support Medicare For All. So if the Democrats want to win people back, they'll give us at least some of what we want and need instead of saying that nice things are impossible with the country so divided right now. We're supposed to accept the free flow of trillions of dollars to our bloated military, and meanwhile pragmatically agree to just die sooner.
No more.
4
As usual, an interesting article by Mr. Edsall. It's also great that he talks to a number of pundits and actually quotes them.
He and they seem to be counting their eggs (i.e., Democrat control of the WH and Congress) before they hatch. They could be right. But I would be more persuaded if there was some support for their analysis by some centrist academics and pundits.
In the end, of course, it will all come down to which party can create the more persuasive fake news. And Trump's pretty good at that.
I am not really in favor of impeachment. After all, the election is a year away.
That said, a reason why Trump has got to go is so we can get our government off this Trump obsession and back to doing what they are supposed to be doing, i.e., providing services and enacting legislation as necessary.
1
"In 2018, for the first time in history, America’s richest billionaires paid a lower effective tax rate than the working class. “The Triumph of Injustice,” by economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman of the University of California at Berkeley, presents a first-of-its kind analysis of Americans’ effective tax rates since the 1960s. It finds that in 2018 the average effective tax rate paid by the richest 400 families in the country was 23 percent, a full percentage point lower than the 24.2 percent rate paid by the bottom half of American households.
In 1980, by contrast, the 400 richest had an effective tax rate of 47 percent. In 1960, their tax rate was as high as 56 percent. The effective tax rate paid by the bottom 50 percent, by contrast, has changed little over time."
After more than 4 decades of trickle-down voodoo economics, maybe it's time for a little overreach.
5
The Republican shift to the right in the 80s, and even more so in the 90s, represented the rise of a new political generation. The corresponding generation on the left was less ruthless in its pursuit of power, and therefore less effective at implementing policy. But it did move public opinion in many ways, for example on women's issues and gay rights.
That generation is still around, but they're not the only voice in the conversation anymore. The youngest serious candidate in the presidential race this time around was born in the 1980s, not the 1940s like the oldest ones. And the Democratic Party is churning like crazy as it tries to figure out how to accommodate its wide range of members and their varying perspectives. That's actually positive for the long term.
The Republicans haven't had to confront their own demographics yet. They prefer to yell a lot and drive out dissenters. But eventually they'll have to decide what kind of party they want and if they want to recalibrate their positions and approaches as the current membership dies off. They'll probably come back in some form or other, but it's too early to tell what that will be.
How many years is it now that I've been reading that demographics or something would put the Republican Party out of business? I'm still waiting. What I have observed is the uncanny ability of Democrats to shoot themselves in the foot. I fully expect it to happen again in 2020. Medicare for All alone will keep Republicans in power. I recently attended a presentation by the authors of The Long Southern Strategy (anybody who wants to understand our politics needs to read it) at the Clinton Library. In the Q&A, one of the authors pointed out how much Republicans spend on opinion polling and how well they use the results. If a well educated, liberal, elite is really running the Democratic agenda, you'd think they'd be smart enough to take voter opinions into account, and not try to run on their preconceived notions.
5
Mr. Edsall started with me very sympathetic to his argument.
For instance, yesterday I saw on one of those Link screens the statistic that 13% of under 30's eligible to vote for Mayor in NYC did so last time.
I'm sure that some of the chronically low participation numbers for young adults has to do with colleges that play havoc with the all important "residency." And the 2 choices were unappetizing to say the least.
Further, Mr. Edsall does well to point out that MANY Afr.-Americans and Latinos are profoundly uncomfortable with things like gay marriage, and I suspect that THAT ONE is not one that will be soft pedaled by the Dem. candidate.
But what on earth is one to make of this jaw-breaker of a paragraph from Mr. Edsall's piece??
--
If they are victorious, will Democrats overreach on either the nexus of social and cultural issues or on economic issues? Will they raise taxes on the middle classes to pay the costs, say, of Medicare for all? Or will they take Sawhill’s advice and focus on more easily achievable progressive economic policy aimed at building financial security and an improved standard of living for those in the bottom four fifths of the income distribution?
--
You CANNOT do much (arguably, Obama did way less than he could have/should have) for the bottom four fifths WITHOUT raising taxes on the middle class! AND that goes double when you recognize that those at the bottom NEED "radical" changes re medical care just to survive. Let's not UNDER-reach again!
That’s hardly the problem with Trump effectively declaring himself dictator. Hand wringing like that of Edsall portend the end of democracy in the US. The US already had reached flawed democracy status before Trump.
3
"political correctness is a problem in our country". Are you serious? This is a "problem" to be addressed at the presidential level? Just how exactly?
And people who bemoan political correctness are merely looking for a pass to be offensive and inappropriate. They lack the smarts to address an issue in a manner other than a kneejerk fashion.
5
It is actually the other way around, Proponents of political correctness use it to hide their lack of arguments and find evermore creative ways to be offended by everything and anything. They also seem to confuse being offended with an argument.
2
News flash:
Not all coastal whites are "elite."
In fact, I'll bet the majority of coastal whites have difficult jobs that pay very modest wages--even college grads often have to hold down several jobs to pay the bills.
And yes, even the "coast" has many struggling farmers, and manufacturing employees who get laid off.
Why aren't their struggles portrayed on the news more?
It's not just the rural "fly-over" folks who have challenges---they are not the only ones left out of the national conversation.
4
As a former Democrat who left in 2016, I am disgusting to the D's focus to destroy and insult and impeach and harass Trump, instead of trying to work with him on lower drug prices and infrastructure and focus on a better candidate for 2020.
I find the D leadership in Congress abysmal from Pelosi and Schiff to the Maxine Waters and AOC and the squad.
I am also disgusted by the obsession with open borders and dreamers and illegal immigrants, instead of real Americans.
Also, I wish media would stop acting like their PR machine and tell me the news without telling me who to hate and who to love at every sentence.
I like Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. I think they would be a ticket that would persuade me to vote D again.
But the Democrats needs someone to reshape the party the way Trump did - it is now a dishonest power hungry group who does not care a iota for anything else than demolish Trump with the help of the Deep State.
4
Blah, blah, blah! This is the kind of thing that got Democrats in trouble in the first place. Too much blather. We need universal health care, child care while parents are working. If not free higher education at least highly subsidized so that we don't have this colossal student debt that can't be gotten rid of with today's salaries. How to pay for it? WE'LL pay for it. People understand that. Consumer protection, reasonable gun control, particularly in large cities. Labor laws that encourage the formation of unions and better company -union cooperation. And, for God's sake, infra-structure repair .
3
Yes, "liberal overreach" can be a problem; but the much bigger problem is right wing media. Fox "News", the Koch brothers octopus of misinformation sources, Sinclair Media (which OWNS the AM band) are a much bigger problem! I won't even mention right wing sources (and their Russian backers) on the internet. If the U.S. doesn't find a way to rein in these sources of misanthropic misinformation, we're all doomed.
2
As a former Democrat who left in 2016, I am disgusted by the D's focus to destroy and insult and impeach and harass Trump, instead of trying to work with him on lower drug prices and infrastructure and focus on a better candidate for 2020.
I find the D leadership in Congress abysmal from Pelosi and Schiff to the Maxine Waters and AOC and the squad. I am also disgusted by the obsession with open borders and dreamers and illegal immigrants, instead of real Americans.
Also, I wish the media would stop acting like their PR machine and tell me the news without telling me who to hate and who to love at every sentence. I like Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard.
I think they would be a ticket that would persuade me to vote D again. But the Democrats need someone to reshape the party the way Trump did - it is now a dishonest power-hungry group who does not care an iota for anything else than demolish Trump with the help of the Deep State.
I also respect Warren and she seems to be a GOOD person, the anti_Hillary, but I am not sure she is tough enough for the job once I saw all the mud thrown at Trump.
What democrats and all politicians need is a strategy to confront the rants, tweets and outrageous endless distractions coming from a narcissistic demagogue using his presidency to enrich himself and his friends.
When we all stop trying to rationalize Trump's utterances and to analyze them as if Trump has a strategy other than stroking his own ego we might have a chance of defeating him.
The press should ignore his words and focus reporting on his actions. The impeachment inquiry should repeat everyday that the president will be investigated for using the power of his office for his own personal gain. When he resists he will be charged with obstruction. These are both a betrayal of his oath of office and impeachable offenses.
The people need to know Trump is working only to enrich himself and his friends and to stroke his own ego. He is willing to drag us all into the gutter with him just so he can say he won. He is not fulfilling his Presidential oath of office.
We need to rid ourselves of Trump and then make sure no new demagogue will ever be permitted to rule our country.
I am a member of the "progressive activists" group described by Mounk. I barely qualify with income as my income is just $100,000 a year, so I am far from rich, but I feel very lucky and well off. My progressive interests are more economics than cultural. I do have a Ph,D. So my opinions here will be considered eleist by many.
I think there are 3 main factors that explain the durability of Republican influence. I do not know how to change them.
1. Racism
2. Ignorance
3. Propaganda
Racism is both conscious and unconscious. For example I read a comment a while ago with the sentence, "I went to my local hospital's emergency room and it was filled with illegals." The writer might say, "I am not a racist. I am in favor of the rule of law." But we have to wonder how did he know all the people were undocumented. The answer is they were brown.
Ignorance is especially harmful in the economic area. For example, people believe that the national debt is dangerous and must be paid down by cutting federal spending and eliminating the deficit. They simply do not know that ALL 6 times we did this, we had a terrible economic disaster.
Propaganda's purpose is to further feudalize the country by making the rich more powerful. For example, Republicans use the ignorance about the debt to convince people that we have to cut back on needed programs like Social Security and to prevent improvements like M4A. Fox News may as well be run by Goebbels.
I certainly do not know how to fix this.
@Len Charlap this is why progressives lose elections. You simply dismiss the other side as morally bereft or flawed. Perhaps instead of labeling the other side, you could work to understand why progressives are repellent to much of this country.
I’m Ivy League educated and a physician with an MBA. I founded own and operate a 75 person company. I am the last thing from racist, I’m environmentally conscious and frankly I’m fairly liberal on social issues.
But I would never vote for a party who’s entire platform seems bent on big government tax and spend policies. The Tax Cuts and Jobs act, contrary to what the NYT tells you, really did benefit small companies and businesses. I would never vote against my self interests there.
So democrats - when you say you’re going to reverse the Tax laws from 2017, understand that you’re essentially declaring war on small business.
2
@Jason - Er, I thought I did not simply "dismiss the other side as morally bereft or flawed," but provided reasons for my opinions. Perhaps you should read some of my other comments which provide history, data and logical arguments to support my positions. I will attach one below so you can see why your disdain of "big government tax and spend policies." is misplaced.
As to Trump's tax cut, simple economic analysis shows shows most of the benefit flowed to the Rich, See for example https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tax-plan-consequences/
Here why that is bad for the economy. Economists have a concept called the velocity of money. It is the frequency, how often, that money changes hands in domestic commerce.
Money going to the Rich has a lower velocity than money going to the non-rich. The Rich spend a lower percentage of their money. What's a guy or gal who already has so many houses he can't remember how many & an elevator for his horse gonna spend his money on? The answer is he is going to use it to
speculate.There is a correlation between inequality & financial speculation. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1661746 Speculation is bad
for the economy. That money has a very low velocity. AND it increases risk which we have seen in 2008 ain't a good thing.
The Trump tax cut has simple made money less useful.
2
Econ 101 for Jason - The idea that the federal gov has to pay for things, good & bad, with
taxes or borrowing is just plain wrong.
The gov doesn't need your money. It can (thru the FED) create as much as it needs out of thin air. Just think about where money you pay your taxes with came from in the first place. Unless you have a printing press in your basement, it originally came from the federal gov.
But there's a catch. If the gov needs to create too much money to do the things we want it to do, we may not be able to make enough stuff to soak that money up & will have too much money chasing not enough stuff, i.e. excessive inflation. This is rare & is usually caused by shortages, e,g, of oil.
But that's easy to solve & where taxes come in. Taxes allow the gov to take back the excess money & prevent inflation. The purpose of taxes is to adjust the amount of money in the private sector. The more we
can produce, the lower taxes can be.
So the way to run things is to spend money to facilitate production. Tax cuts do this, but in an inefficient way. If we cut Daddy Warbuck's
taxes, he does not need to spend the money; he uses it for financial speculation. If we cut poor Joe's taxes, he spends the money on stuff--food, house paint, etc.etc. This promotes production of food, etc.
Even better if we pay Joe to fix a bridge, the money still gets into the economy, AND we get the bridge fixed.
Just remember, the federal gov will run out of money when the NFL runs out of points.
3
There have always been enough fake democrats, known as moderates or centrists that congress and the presidents only ever implement flawed half measures. It's the point of moderates. If you do not think that moderate democrats intentionally undermine a true progressive agenda you are not paying attention. Overreach is not a problem, a democratic party of fake democrats who are simply another type of republican is.
What an interesting twist a headline all by itself can have.
After what the Republicans have done, Democrats have an awful lot to do before any of it could possibly be called "overreaching."
1
Warren and Sanders, on the face of it, are obviously dead right that the "middle" class will have much more money in its pockets--not to mention much better sleep at night--if we raise taxes but eliminate all their health insurance costs at the same time, in order to guarantee the same level of medical care for all which Medicare now provides for seniors. It's up to them to make the case to the masses. If they do, this battle will be over, and we can revolutionize the area of by far the greatest concern to those masses: their fears over healthcare and insurance. Naturally, the insurance industry will mount an ad campaign that will make the ads that helped kill Hillary's proposed reforms in the early 90s look like nothing. It's up to Warren and Sanders to simply defeat these lies in the marketplace of ideas. The same goes for Warren and Sanders' other proposals which would, on the face of it, significantly reduce inequality and poverty in America, for whites as much as blacks. If Warren and Sanders can't win this argument, shame on them.
42
@Fred White
Since it’s so clear and obvious please demonstrate it. I’ve seen it asserted but not shown.
What seems obvious to me by the way is that it’s often a good thing when people can choose between a public option and a private option (as with water and electricity, education, libraries, parks and recreation). It’s a good thing cities as well as private contractors can fix the streets. It was a good thing when the government started building some decent modest housing 70 to 80 years ago and when it started building high rise slums instead it was good to return low rent housing to the private sector. Social security provides a bedrock old age pension that people can supplement with private sector products.
So it seems obvious to me that the government should provide a well-designed public option in health care and regulate the private sector as it regulates other kinds of insurance. If the public or private options triumph it will be over time because of choice, with problems solved along the way.
But if you’ve got the costs and who bears them, allocation of resources and who decides, and the like all wrapped up in an obvious clear way, please share with the rest of us.
8
@Fred White
Here's something that supporters of medicare-for-all never want to address: the role that the economy plays in funding a single payer system. When a recession hits there's simply less funding. Britons are all too familiar with the funding issues that plagued their healthcare system in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, which led to two profound outcomes:
1 - A reduction in the accessibility of care. Longer wait times at hospitals, delays in access to non-life saving surgeries and much more red tape to wade through to get care. I know this because I lived in London as an ex-pat during that time and I can attest that people were very very unhappy with the system.
2 - Those who could afford to supplement their universal coverage with private out-of-pocket healthcare services did so, en mass. The result was that the wealthy simply avoided the stress by paying for better healthcare. And many great doctors opened private practices to cater to a more elite and profitable clientele.
The U.S. is not immune to recessions, so it holds that we would experience the same outcomes, prompting either significant tax increases to make up for the shortfall or a reduction in the quality and access to care. From my vantage point, a system that combines public and private options is much better suited to our economy.
6
@John
We have been on Medicare since before the Great Recession. There was no downturn in services following the onset of the recession, as Medicare and SS are funded through trust funds (their long term viability is another issue, as both are presently underfunded). Perhaps the British system is based on an annual budget allocation that can drastically vary according to the performance of the economy.
6
“If the Democrats are lucky enough to sweep the elections” finally begins to get at it. The rest is political science talk. Continued control of one chamber by the party of “no” next Nov. dooms any hope for progress, for getting anything done, for a renewed belief in the legislative (Democratic) process’s ability to make headway on substantive issues that have broad public support. Do not underestimate how effective the Tea Party/McConnell strategy of NO, the compromise is capitulation attitude has been in creating wide spread anti government sentiment, that the Obama years didn’t help “me”, the desperation which led to the “let’s shake things up,” try anything (Trump). Arguing about how far left or how much the political spectrum has moved in the last fifty years may be intellectually satisfying, but it’s politically futile. Dem candidates know and articulate the issues. It’s about winning the WH AND the Senate. Absent the power to effect meaningful legislation will assure continuance of destructive, misdirected partisanship and make for an ugly 2021-22 and a disgruntled electorate more frustrated than today.
Please read The Irish Times article from 6/26/18 by Fintan O’Toole. It makes all these arguments look, if not moot, limited in scope.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-runs-for-fascism-are-in-full-flow-1.3543375
1
As soon as trump declares war on the Constitution and our Congress, conservatives develop a lot of concern about how Democrats need to be polite......
3
To our Democratic leaders we say: Overreach away.
A.
You have nothing to lose (only the Republicans are Losers), and everything to gain -- including the White House.
B.
Thanks to bumbling Trump, conservative Republican forces are in tatters -- too weakened by 2 years of nonstop lying, bullying, and cheating.
C.
Stan Greenberg's auspicious predictions about the "New America" are already proving correct (R.I.P. McConnell).
D.
Most important here: When upholding this nation's laws, there is no such thing as "overreaching".
4
What is left out in this analysis is the role race is now playing in our national psyche. Trump is an expert at playing the race card, and plays over and over again. It energizes his base, and, for the white working class plays on their fears of a lost America. Having said that, and as powerful as I think the race card is, Trump's absolute incompetence at his job will be his undoing.
47
@Amanda Jones people of all colors and genders are struggling in America to pay bills, address medical debt, keep a roof over their head, food on the table & keep their kids safe.
This is not just affecting the white working class.
2
@Amanda Jones and it's no coincidence that the GOP has been doing the same thing for decades. I feel as if I'm watching the country return to the early to mid-20th century when it comes to civil rights. In America every advance has always had an exclusion in it designed to hurt African Americans. It's one of the reasons we have such a horrible social safety net and why we don't have a better health care system.
4
A problem with all these predictions of our glorious progressive future is that there is no apparent presumption that the political opposition is going to adapt, and fight back. This they will certainly do, and after the new Democratic coalition starts picking its winners and losers, those who come out empty-handed in the identity game will become easy targets for that opposition to pick off. Voters become more fiscally conservative as they age also, which will make them more amenable to a post-Trump conservative movement. Once these elements are factored in, this predicted ascension of liberalism will last just one or two electoral cycles, like most of the winning political movements do in the U.S.
Can someone with a degree in neoliberalism please explain this passage? It makes no sense to me:
“Will they raise taxes on the middle classes to pay the costs, say, of Medicare for all? Or will they take Sawhill’s advice and focus on more easily achievable progressive economic policy aimed at building financial security and an improved standard of living for those in the bottom four fifths of the income distribution?”
I cannot think of a single policy that would give the bottom 4/5 of Americans greater financial security than Medicare for all.
4
Donald Trump won Pennsylvania by 43,000 votes, Wisconsin by 23,000 votes, and Michigan by 11,000 votes. The voters in suburban Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and Detroit spoke forcefully in the 2018 midterms. And that is where the 2020 election will be won, along with the suburbs of Raleigh/Charlotte, Phoenix, Atlanta, and Miami.
It has been reported elsewhere that 2% of Trump voters nationwide voted for Obama in 2008 and/or 2012. Their rationale was that they didn't particularly like Hillary, and decided to give Trump a chance. There are lots of stories about those voters and their buyers' remorse.
Are there any stories about Clinton voters who are considering voting for Trump in 2020? Why not? Because there are none.
It is the Party of Trump that went all-in on open corruption, hatred, and division. And you're wringing your hands over Democrats' overreach? Seriously?
3
@Kevin Brock: Boom! Mic drop! Very well said! THIS should be an NYT pick. Thank you.
No mention of the Judiciary? - lifetime appointments made in the last few years that will haunt this nation for a generation. The conservative majority on the Supreme court will be ever more out of step with the electorate as time passes and demographics shift, supporting illiberal policies, voter suppression (of Democratic constituencies), expansion of civil rights to minority groups, etc. We're in deep trouble regardless of the possible electoral blue wave on the horiszon.
3
As a lifelong Democrat, I have one and only one goal for 2020: defeat Trump. Nothing else matters to me, because nothing that I want as a Democrat will happen unless we first defeat Trump.
Democrat presidential candidates, are you listening? Stop this ridiculous and over-subscribed contest, and unite behind the one goal that matters!
3
All of this analysis and hand-wringing is just hogwash. You can try and assign noble motives to those on the right and blather on about political correctness and all the other popular talking points of the day but the truth is there are great portions of our nation - the South, the Midwest, the Rust Belt, etc. that are populated by a majority of people motivated only by hate. Bigotry is the one factor that those on the right can get behind and their support of racism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc. is what drive these people to the polls. These people eat up the red meat of hate that the Republican Party and Trump throw at them and that will never change. Its sad, but its who we are as a nation.
3
No, but Democrats cannot help themselves.
3
Mr. Edsall, just let the Democrats win the White House and Congress, and then we'll worry about whether they'll overreach. Let's worry about one important thing at a time.
I read Greenberg's book, not because I believe his thesis, although I hope to heaven he's right, but because I needed a tranquilizer from Trump's continuing successes, in spite of his total lawlessness. The Democrats can't even seem to get to first base on impeaching him.
I call Greenberg's book "Valium for Democrats."
If you want a night's sleep, read it. But don't fool yourself into necessarily believing it. Yes, I know the polls are rising for impeachment. But you know what. The polls are much greater that show Americans want more gun control: 95 per cent, as a matter of fact. But despite weekly slaughters, we have no increased gun control. So much for polls.
And, by the way Mr. Edsall, didn't you recently write a column expressing the fear that no matter what, Trump will simply refuse to leave the White House, which would assure him a second term, and make totally moot your concerns that the Democrats will take over the government and proceed to overreach.
1
Those stats about Congressional districts are amazing. It evidences the fact that the old “limousine liberal” charge is very much alive and well. Of course, they probably don’t own or use limousines. Uber elitists?
Edsall's perception--and he is not alone--will no doubt prove correct: we will continue to gyrate between dominant parties. His column is like listening to dueling expert witnesses on the stand.
Although not always the case, the USA has preferred divided government for the last several decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divided_government_in_the_United_States . AND https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/419269-this-era-of-divided-government-is-nothing-new-in-american-politics .
It will take decades to determine if this time is different. Maybe. In the meantime, we still need to get rid of a thoroughly incompetent president and an obstructive Senate leader.
I would rather vote Republican, but the real Republicans like Dwight Eisenhower, John Anderson, Bill Frenzel (MN-3), and Arne Carlson (former MN Gov.) are hard to find.
17
Melvyn Magree -- "Real" Republicans aren't the only GOPers who are hard to find. "Civil", "Decent", "Fair", "Honest" Republicans are also hard to find -- in fact, the hardest.
27
Medicare for All is overreaching?
Who else do you plan to negotiate for you against the Medical Industry, the powerful Insurers, the Hospitals, and Big Pharma?
Bernie Sanders had a small incident with his heart. What if that happened to you? What if you were told the bill was $500,000. Is this what you want, bankruptcy?
Infrastructure is overreaching?
Ask Flint, Michigan how their water is. Is this what you want to drink?
Taking positive steps to combat climate change. Is this overreaching?
Ask the constantly flooded mid-West, the hurricane ravaged Atlantic seaboard, fire ravaged California, and all others who are affected. How much do you think inaction will cost?
NO. The Democrats do not have overreaching ideals. They have practical and common sense solutions that our world demands.
The Republicans have nothing except money in their pockets.
Warren-Gabbard 2020. One thousand percent.
5
@PC - Well, what if you were told you have to pay $1100 a month to buy into Medicare? There are currently people who do have to buy in, and that's what they're paying.
1
@Jonathan my employer-provided health insurance costs in premiums more than $1100 a month. I'm sure that my employer would love to take that cost off their books.
@Kevin Brock - You employer probably provides a more comprehensive plan that bare-bones Medicare. If you were on Medicare, you'd also need a Part B supplemental plan and a Part D drug plan, and you still wouldn't be covered for dental and vision.
2
The Democrats must make a big decision and be honest about it. We cannot have unfettered illegal immigration, mass legal migration (with visa workers from Asia) and at the same time increase the wages, have medicare for all, free tuition in public universities, and more affordable housing for Americans.
Since Obama took officer with the backing of Soros, the Democrats have pretended they wanted all the good things for Americans listed above but at every opportunity used their political capital to promote open borders and mass migration that in effect undermines these goals.
As long as Democrats pretend we can have both, they do not deserve our vote, but the votes of people in India and Mexico.
15
"... is that even the right goal for 2020?"
No, not all. The principal problem Democrats face is the rise of Elizabeth Warren. It is not that much like George McGovern's rise in 1972, but close enough.
I believe Warren is rising this much this fast is because of 3 reasons: 1. Bernie Sanders is too old & less impressive. 2. Joe Biden is too old & hardly impressive. 3. Warren is unusually impressive, an excellent debater. The so-called "real" Democrats have accepted her as their mantle-bearer, re/displacing Sanders.
But Warren has her problems, which CAN be insurmountable: A forgotten problem is that she did claim she was (full-blooded) "Native American" in an application, a lie for advantage. When & if she is the nominee, Republicans will beat upon her relentlessly.
She's a good debater but she's not a strong/tough woman; she can break down under stress, as happened when she was about to go on John Stewart show, some years ago.
Finally she's the only candidate, besides Sanders & Marianne Williamson to be that far to the left, which's quite unnecessary though she will get tons of followers.
I wish she kept her socialist plans "covered up" to be taken out if & when the time comes. Now she can't pull back, which will make her look not genuine.
2
The Democrats are going to have to sell the vision of democratic socialism to Americans first before they can win big and try to deliver. As long as people still believe in this mythology that electing a true liberal is tantamount to Soviet era breadlines and Castro’s Cuba while conversely the invisible hand of the free market economy rights all wrongs, I don’t believe we will ever get true change. Even if a Sanders or a Warren gets elected, too many states have elected too many legislators that will make sure no fundamental change will ever happen. The system is rigged, and everyone knows it. The money in politics makes it so. We all know how it works the corporations hand legislation that won’t even be read to a Congress through lobbyists to rubber stamp.
Yes, Americans should know what’s good for them and what’s not. However, until dems do a better job convincing the voters that this is not working out for them, I’m afraid we’re going to have more of the same. And then they have the next problem of making change. It’s an uphill battle for sure.
3
@Mickey And how do the Democrats convince the voters that "this is not working out for them" when there is record low employment, record numbers of new cars sold every year, cruise ships, theme parks, resorts, national parks, airlines and restaurants crammed to overflowing, and every household with an expensive cable package, multiple TVs and cars for the teenagers? Seems like the middle class is doing very well, thank you. The constant Democratic drumbeat of oppression by the 1% may be catching on, but voters have concluded that the Democrats can't fix it and vote Republican.
4
@David
Well, first I’d be really careful with some of the “greatest economy ever” cherry picked data that Trump/Fox routinely exaggerate for narrative purposes. That being said, the indicators of a healthy economy go back through Obama, with some of those numbers being better during Obama’s tenure.
Yet, there were enough Americans sensing that they were backsliding and not being represented in the neoliberal windfall touted in the news. Thus, the electoral college system gave us Trump. So there are questions that remain. Does propping up a plutocracy that empowers a handful of billionaires make the rust belt come back?” Does it end the opioid crisis? Is it going to keep those jobs here that GM is preparing right now to send to China? Is it fixing the schools? Is it shoring up the Social Security that corporate America would like to steal from Trump voters? Or Medicare and Medicaid? How about the mental health crises in cities? And despite your assertion about the “multiple TVs and cars for teenagers”, we still have a startling child hunger problem in the US, which is sinful for a nation that likes to brag about its superlative wealth.
Sorry, but I can’t agree with the conservative notion that the invisible hand of the free market has righted all that’s wrong. It’s the progressives that open the door for more representation o of the nation’s resources, often with the very recipients of those resources kicking and screaming the whole way.
@Mickey I am not relying on anybody's "cherry-picked data," nor arguing that Trump is responsible for the economy. I am just looking around and reporting what I see. Billionaires and plutocrats are not overrunning Yosemite, Disney World, and Gatlinburg. They are not buying 17 million new cars each year, cruising the Caribbean in record numbers on mega ships, or crowding flights to the gulf coast beaches and Vegas. Counting on voters to vote Democratic because economically it is not working out for them ignores the actual facts on the ground.
1
How can Republicans continue to violate their oaths of office that they swore to uphold in the face of the most clear, impeachable offenses ever committed by a president?
How long will Republicans put their personal political fortunes and their party ahead of the US national security in the face of multiple attacks on US democracy from foreign enemies?
We are in a Constitutional Crisis no matter how you define it. How long can the country function like this?
3
Unfinished agendas requiring defense of the rights and liberties of women, ethnic and sexual minorities, of the safety of children and refugees, the voices of the poor, and the very survival of the planet call for bold policies, not centrist amelioration. Not when so many very real crises confront us. Learn to read the signs of the times and to advocate accordingly.
Democrats must make the case for the crisis-ridden times we live in and trust the American voter to get it.
3
It's not complicated. If Democrats want more success, they should hire fewer policy advisors and recruit more public relations and marketing people. They should spend less time lecturing and more time listening.
The GOP constantly plays emotional cards. Double-standards rule the day and hypocrisy is a badge of honour. When under attack, the party deflects the incoming fire and immediately launches counter-attacks that are 10 times more lethal. Facts never get in the way.
Democrats, in contrast, rarely speak to voters' deep-rooted needs or emotions. They constantly shrink and apologize when under attack. They rarely show courage in their convictions.
So put yourself in the shoes of a voter struggling to survive and answer this question: Would rather have a no-holds-barred fighter in your corner or a navel gazing policy wonk?
They've already overreached.
6
Democrats, stay focused on the issues! They are, in order of priority: 1. Climate Change. 2. Climate Change. 3. Climate Change. 4. Climate Change. If this issue is not forcefully and immediately addressed, nothing else will matter.
1
Al Gore, VP in a wildly popular administration, managed to lose to a man clearly not smart enough to be president. Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State in a very popular administration, managed to lose to a man who makes W in retrospect seem to be Doctor Einstein. I am pretty sure the Democrats will muck up 2020 and help Trump coast to re-election. God help America.
4
Would someone please stand up to Trump and his cronies when they proffer the argument that by impeachment the Democrats are trying to undo the 2016 election? This is a red herring, but one that will inflame Trump's base. If the Democrats had begun inquiries immediately after the election and before the inauguration, someone might claim this was an attempt to undo the election results. But this wasn't the case. Trump has committed offense after offense, abuse of power after abuse, obstruction of justice after obstruction. Impeachment is a legitimate, appropriate, constitutionally sanctioned Congressional act. Don't let Trump pervert this process.
1
We have the most corrupt and inept government in my history (75 years). Democrats don't need extreme liberal policy proposals to beat Trump. They should not make proposals that they can not achieve, like Medicare for all. Improved health care accessible to everyone, sure, but not Medicare for all. It is okay for Sanders to propose free college for all as a debate point, but the group of Trump supporters with a high school education will be repelled by such a proposal. Run against what Trump has done to destroy the country. That is a winning platform.
1
Says Edsall: “There are, however, a number of flashing yellow lights Democrats may want to consider before proclaiming victory.”
Before laughing over how huge an understatement this is, pause a moment to look at the opposition: a cabal of bilious billionaires who run the Senate, the GOP, half the Supreme Court, and 3O State Legislatures. Not to mention a huge echo chamber of “alternative” facts, conspiracy theories, and fundamentalist repression.
6
Democrats are running, again, on identity politics and raising taxes.
That will not win them an election.
Ignoring half of the populace is not a good strategy, nor is telling people you will take their money to give it to someone else.
Most poor people don't vote, so...
12
'Things' are not going well anywhere
If $5 wins, his dynasty begins
"Rage, Rage against the dying of the light..."
2
Why is it always on the Democrats to dial back? The republicans have, since Reagan, systematically gutted the middle class. The idea that Democrats might be "overreaching" to put policies in place to reverse that--jeez!
3
They've already overreached. When the candidates, all of which were alive in the cold war and have witnessed the repeated collapse and failure of socialist experiments around the world, want to crush the operation of free enterprise, that is overreaching.
6
Why are people so outraged by Trump like he's different from any other U.S. President? With the exception of maybe FDR and Lincoln, I loathe every US president in history for being a vassal of monopoly capital, white supremacy, and patriarchy. (And I don't have any great affection for FDR or Lincoln, just some modicum of respect). Trump has yet to accomplish anything that rivals Obama's & Clinton's destruction of Libya, and while it is one of the smaller misdeeds on his record, Obama once stopped-and-frisked the presidential airplane of Bolivia's first indigenous president, Evo Morales, in an attempt to find Edward Snowden. Nobody said anything. Can you imagine that happening if Trump did it?
7
"as Hillary Clinton did so disastrously in 2016."
For (of course, not) the last time, HRC, for all her flaws, won by 3M votes.
Which underscores the flaws in analyses such as this one.
Is it even helpful to talk about how candidates do in these or those districts? Pols have been picking their voters for so long that we might as we rename the country The Gerrymandered Districts of America.
2
Progressive Democrats might be surprised at how ordinary blacks and Hispanics think. They are mostly looking for decent jobs where they can earn a good living, and not having to pay too much in taxes. They are opposed to illegal immigration, which they see as providing wage-lowering competition. In short, their views are very similar to those of white blue-collar workers, many of whom voted for Trump.
It is highly likely that many black and Hispanic blue-collar workers might consider voting for the GOP, particularly if someone like Elizabeth Warren were the Democratic nominee. A GOP president other than Trump would already have asked for their vote, and assured them that he had their interests in mind. The old GOP courted black businessmen and executives, but the policies of Trump are more suited to attracting blue-collar workers who depend on a regular paycheck.
6
@Jonathan In what ways to Republicans deliver decent jobs where they (blacks and Hispanics) can earn a good living? What specific policies of Trump are more suited to attracting blue-collar workers who depend on a regular paycheck? After all, let's consider the hallmark achievements of the Trump administration:
- tax cuts for the wealthy
And I'm still thinking....
4
@Kevin Brock - A recent article in The Atlantic discussed wage trends in the recent economy. While the wages of well-paid white-collar workers are relatively stagnant, the wages of blue-collar workers have gone up sharply in the last 3 years. This would indicate to me that removing the competition from illegal immigrants is having an impact on relative wages.
Tax cuts for the wealthy? The elimination of the deduction for state and local income taxes has resulted in higher taxes for most taxpayers in the top 10% in income. These are the same people whose wages are stagnating, so it's not surprising if they're annoyed at Trump and the GOP.
3
@Jonathan In 2018, for the first time in history, America’s richest billionaires paid a lower effective tax rate than the working class. That is a fact.
4
The Republican strategy is exploiting resentment. The resentment is partly "economic", but it's mostly cultural. Why would farmers continue to stand by the Regime while they are losing money on the trade wars? Why would voters who cannot afford health insurance vote for representatives who want to abolish Obamacare? And on and on. These people vote again and again against their own self interest because of bathrooms, political correctness, immigration, and a feeling that the "elites" are condescending to them about how to think about society and wealth.
Hence the Democrats need to disarm this cultural resentment most of all but also while presenting a socio-economic platform that is seen as pragmatic. So far I don't see this happening.
3
RD Chew -- I'm not as pessimistic that the Democrats' socio-economic platform may not be "pragmatic". On the contrary, the Democrats are already on the right track -- and Always Have Been -- by seeking socio-economic FAIRNESS for all Americans.
2
The closest elections tend to matter most. The election of 1876 brought an end to Reconstruction. The election of 1960 paved the way for ending segregation. And if Gore had won in 2000, we would be well on our way to reversing climate change. Every vote counts. Cast yours with great care.
4
One specific change to a Democratic overreach: forgiving college loans. Don't forgive the loans, but reset the interest rates to zero or close to zero. With enough funding perhaps some past interest payments could be recharacterized as principle payments.
Then people who took loans will be seen as paying back what they were given, but without being used as a profit source for the financial elites. And for the borrowers there will then be some light at the end of the debt treadmill tunnel.
3
@Jim S. - The US Government, not the 'financial elites', gets the their interest payments. The government likes to receive money, that's why we have taxes!
1
Labels like "left" and "moderate" have no commonly accepted definition. Warren, for example, is portrayed as a leftist, yet she really fits my definition of moderate, in that she wants to reform capitalism, not replace it.
Democrats own the issues. Trump is dependent on a toxic mix of racism, sexism, religious bigotry and homophobia. Not that that explains all his support, but if it were not for those, he and the Republicans would sink like a stone. And those issues are fear based. They appeal to people without hope. Offer them effective progressive government and while those issues won't disappear, they're a lot less likely to get people elected to high office.
Offering hope (again) requires offering real solutions, not watered-down compromises. There are lots of Gordian knots that need cutting.
6
@writeon1 I agree wholeheartedly. Senator Warren's basic philosophy is that government should work for natural persons, not for legal fictions called corporations and other business entities. That to me seems a most conservative approach to the letter and spirit of our founding document that starts with the words, "We the People."
5
The old "political correctness" goblin - a term used by those who want to silence any push for equity by people who have been marginalized at best and demonized at worst.
The poll cited in the article just indicates that Republican propaganda is powerful. What we need are powerful ways to counter it - because if we shape our identity in relation to every fake accusation and straw man argument they come up with we will have no identity.
Democrats are the party of inclusion. The party of science. The party of facing our true history. The party of rule of law. The party of evidence-based reality. There are ideas being debated from centrist to progressive - that's how you come to consensus, by debating ideas and trying to convince each other of their merits.
Republicans have opted out of the debate that is democracy in favor of team loyalty and propaganda. We will carry on without them.
3
@Lynne
If 'Democrats are the party of inclusion' then why is the largest voting bloc in the country Independents ?
1
@Lynne Is Hunter a Democrat?
"The survey found that among all voters, 80 percent agreed that “political correctness is a problem in our country..."
Political correctness used to be called civility or courtesy or the common good. Political correctness used to be respect for the rule of law, and the necessity of institutions to execute the rule of law (now called another epithet, the deep state). "Politically incorrect" gives license to legitimize hate and bigotry.
Beyond that, if concepts like the right to vote, equality under the law, environmental protection, collective bargaining, public education, national defense and world stability based on cooperation among allies, and sensible immigration policy are part of some "doctrinaire elite" construct, then please count me an elitist.
5
“The right goal” is simple:
bring back empathy, decency and diplomacy.
Everything that is missing right now.
2
@Brunella
Sounds nice, but won’t convince people having a desperate time paying their bills. That is the point of the article.
1
@Cynthia
Empathy, decency and diplomacy translate into policy too — which the GOP has done their best to steamroll.
It's not that hard really. Secure borders with a point based immigration system like Canada. Medicare for all who want it/ public option. A somewhat more progressive tax system, higher on the richest, lower on the middle. No stupid wars but a strong military to back it up. Fight climate change in ways the grow the economy: Solar, wind, smart technologies, not that wreck it.
As much as it pains me to Quote Reagan, "Find a 80% issue (probably 60% today) stand next to it and smile."
182
@Bob
In addition to the above, throw in more regulation of Wall Street, expansion of Social Security, reversal of Citizen's United, a new Voting RIghts Act to prevent voter suppression. Plenty of popular issues to choose from.
40
@Bob
That issue is immigration. And Trump is smiling.
14
@Steve and Bob, Start with infrastructure projects that put people to work and money in their pockets then work on social issues like education, health care, SS, Medicare. Large employment projects will strengthen unions, households and communities.
19
"Will they raise taxes on the middle classes to pay the costs, say, of Medicare for all?"
That's laughable. Democrats have spent at least the last ten years trying to convince us that all our woes are due to the filthy rich 1%, or 0.1%, or the 400 richest - and all we need to do to solve our problems is impose confiscatory taxes on those few. The idea of asking middle class, or even upper-middle class folks to help pay for ambitious government spending is out of the question.
The Democratic Party's thinking, even about the confiscatory taxes on the ultra-rich may well change, once they realize that an awfully lot of those ultra-rich are their constituents. Remember when Barack Obama wanted to raise taxes on people with incomes over $250K? Then Nancy Pelosi took a look at how many of her constituents were in that group, and said maybe we should raise taxes on people making more than $1 million.
28
@Gary R
Of course tax increases on the rich and on corporations -- or in other words fair taxes -- are needed, and are not the entire solution to anything. We need pre-K for all, affordable day-care, good schools, Medicare for All, good regulations to protect the environment, good diplomacy instead of threatening war, etc. This is what Democrats are all about.
17
@Gary R Last year, for the first time in our history, billionaires paid a lower income tax rate than working class Americans. Congratulations!
18
@Gary R
How about if we go back to the tax structure of one of the most prosperous times in US history, i.e. 80% top marginal tax rate? That was when we had a robust middle class. As we have lowered taxes on the rich, all we have done is widen income inequality until we have reached a new Gilded Age. That cannot last. Tax increases are preferable to guillotines.
12
The bigger problem for decades hasn't been Democratic over-reach but it's opposite: promising big, delivering small. Frequent scaling down of vision and effort in the face of predictable conservative push-back. Domestic examples include infrastructure (a big promise by Clinton in 1992, dropped like a hot potato at the first sign of congressional resistance), health care (dropped in 1993, watered down in 2008), and Main Street, in contrast to Wall St., recession relief (2008 onward). In each case successful Democrats have promised big, delivered small, and failed to lead public opinion or articulate persuasive rationales for failure beside Republican opposition.
Edsall begins by noting widespread public opposition to political correctness, which reflects a prevalent political phenomenon: euphemism in lieu of performance. A mask for underreach that focuses on the feelings of some victims rather than on remedying their, indeed everyone's, underlying economic and social problems. The ultimate challenge for Democrats is to restore their credibility, realign their promises with performance, and focus more on unifying America, emphasizing that blights like inequality and plutocracy injure all but the richest. And then working harder to deliver on their promises.
37
@Trashandsend
Nowhere is "promising big, delivering small' more apparent than DeBlasio's NYC.
5
Gosh, the Republicans have been "overreaching" for decades in undoing every aspect of progress in this country and no one ever seems concerned. It's only when Democrats want to change things for the better that we have to worry about overreaching.
No, Oliver Twist, you can't have a second bowl of gruel. That would be overreaching and we can't have that, can we?
14
@DHRiley
The problem with your argument is that this country is generally speaking, still a largely conservative. Those who are falling behind are a resentful group who blame others for their predicament. The author points out on more than one occasion that people won’t vote for huge change until they see their basic needs met. Obamacare was the beginning but political correctness in these people’s minds, along with immigration seemed to sway them further to the right. Dream big, yes, take steps to protect the climate and create opportunities for those who struggle, whether they be students with crushing debt, wider community college availability, higher taxes on the the most wealthy, etc. Can they make these arguments? I predict that Warren will modify her “Medicare for All” promises at some point over the next year.
"Democrats must first win the White House and the Congress and then begin to address the deep-seated problems that have been neglected for far too long."
If only it were that easy, not that winning the presidency and both houses is "easy". It will always be an uphill climb due to:
1) the electoral college
2) disproportionate Senate representation
3) court-supported gerrymandering
4) voter suppression
5) dubious voting machines, often provided courtesy of a big-time Mitch McConnell donor
6) FOX News and their AM radio allies
And then there are the Russians....
Even if all these obstacles can be overcome, and the trifecta achieved, any dreams of advancing a progressive agenda will have to come to grips with the stranglehold the GOP has established on the judicial branch: not only the Supreme Court, but district courts around the country--an edge that could last for decades. And then there's GOP control of state houses, which has effectively outlawed abortion in a number of states.
Last, not least, there's the "parallel government" which has been carefully assembled over the last 40 years. I refer not only to FOX, now the nation's most trusted advisor™, but the network of "think tanks" and non-profits funded by the Kochs and Adelsons. Who needs government? The Federalist Society makes our judicial appointments and ALEC handles the writing of legislation.
These fronts, and their backers, exert enormous influence. The progressive side has no comparable infrastructure.
7
Overreaching?
"I'm not going to be Trump or do the awful things he has planned, but otherwise I'm not going to change anything" is not a compelling campaign narrative.
16
@Pdxtran yeah, a democracy doesn’t matter. What nonsense. That’s really the question.
@Pdxtran
That's what kept Hillary out of the White House: no new ideas... her campaign was just stale beer.
2
As Katalina in Austin recommends, read what Begala warns, not what Greenberg imagines. "New America"? Pundits gotta pundit, it doesn't mean their personal trademarked view reflects reality.
I'm an independent - one of the center-left some Progressives hate worse than they hate the GOP, and spent last weekend at a family party, tucked in among a flock of Trump-loving loved ones, who are either Republicans or libertarian independents.
We all agree, even the gun owners, on the basic changes to gun laws - close background check loopholes, add red-flag laws, etc. They see the value of expanded healthcare access.
But they tag the entire Democratic Party as being too PC. And they feel that the Democrats are only interested in "giving things" to illegal immigrants and all the different ethnic/gender minorities.
So I really hope the Dems don't hallucinate mandates that will leave the White House unchanged in 2020. And this article didn't mention that Progressives will accomplish zero without a change in the Senate - voters across the country aren't showing uniform desire for filling the Senate with progressives.
So please, Dems, just win the White House, keep the House and see what you can accomplish in the Senate.
5
"He argues that the inability of the Obama administration to ameliorate the devastating consequences of the 2008 economic meltdown in much of rural and small-town America contributed to the 2016 swing to Trump in working- and middle-class districts that had voted for Obama:"
Too bad they didn't ask themselves who put them in that situation to begin with: The GOP, beginning with Reagan. This is why so many of the Founding fathers were concerned with allowing the poorly educated to have significant voting power. It's not "politically correct" to say this these days, but it's the truth.
10
Government control of major economic enterprise is incompatible with democracy. That has been demonstrated time and time again.
6
@Kent Kraus, uninhibited laissez-faire enterprise is incompatible with democracy.
Prudent government regulation is essential to safeguarding democratic processes and institutions. Since the time when God gave Moses the commandments, we have known that a society that produces radical income inequality is incompatible with the rights, liberties, pursuit of opportunity, and power of governance of a free people.
41
@Kent Kraus
So is crony capitalism.
"Overreaching"
Such a nebulous, and subjective term.
Is it synonymous with bold, principled action?
Isn't under-reaching the reason we are here stuck in quagmire of disillusionment, and cynicism?
I often hear 'overreaching' used as a pejorative term intended on stifling any move from the status quo.
At this point in time, moving from this miserable status quo should be the our top priority.
Or, is that overreaching?
6
@ExPDXer
We haven't been overreaching: we've been over-promising.
1
This is fascinating analysis that every Democrat should read. Thank you.
3
It is a big mistake to view support for taxing the rich, which I favor, as a sign of America's ascendant liberalism (promises of which I have been hearing for more than fifty years). It is simply an example of Americans' unshakable belief that they deserve benefits and someone else should foot the bill. That belief is an article of faith on the left, right, and center.
4
@Fred You say, " It is simply an example of Americans' unshakable belief that they deserve benefits and someone else should foot the bill."
No, actually, the belief is that all Americans have a level playing field to work on, so they can have a chance to achieve the American Dream. The republicans have for decades tilted that playing field to their rich corporate donors.
The rich should pay their share. How is it that people like Jared Kushner paid no income tax while I paid quite a bit more than none, but don't have the same bank balance as he does?!?
4
@Fred, getting the rich to pay their fair share and stopping unnecessary corporate welfare is not getting someone else to "foot the bill" it is everyone working together for mutual benefit. We used to do that, and when we did, we made America great. Conservatives call that socialism with a sneer and want to "Make America Great Again", but like many conservative mottos they really mean the opposite. Patriot Act= becoming more authoritarian, Citizens United= corporations united, Pro-Life= pro gun, pro death penalty, pro destroying safety nets. The "unshakable belief" is that the rich and white deserve benefits and only the huge amount of tax collected from the '99%' can "foot the bill".
1
Overreach isn’t the problem for Democrats, the concentration of power in the hands of a few is the danger for us all. Republicans decided to ignore cultural changes and double down on stealing elections through their natural advantages. They used their stranglehold on campaign money, the religious right, disgruntled white voters, and a reliable majority in the Supreme Court to cement their power. That power gave them the opportunity to dilute the advantage of any majority by using gerrymandering and voter suppression to reduce their opposition. Republicans understand democracy can be used in an autocratic fashion when used improperly.
3
It the GOP and Trump win after all of this, then then country truly will have the government it deserves.
1
Oh come on, Tom. do you actually think that any of this will be an issue next year? The only issue is going to be whether our freedom lives or dies.
3
If this election is about kitchen table issues: jobs & healthcare there's no way the Democrats lose. If it's about reparations, immigration, & wedding cakes there's no way we win. These are the only issues that would compel independent swing voters to vote for Trump again. What progressives & their co-dependents will never understand is that Anti-left” will always beat “anti-Trump” in most places in the U.S. but especially in swing states like Ohio & Florida. Our best chance is to run from the center. Trump wouldn't have capitalized on the salience of race & ethnicity if the Democrats hadn't exploited it. Exploited they have to the max from offering free health care to illegals to crowing about the new minority-majority which is itself a lie to ignoring working-class concerns. Mind you the working class has always been one of the cornerstones of the Democratic party why one would want to alienate them has to be the most idiotic political decisions of all time. This strategy has handcuffed the party. They are unable to react in real-time to issues that concern all Americans for fear of alienating their now identitarian base. The biggest question implied but not answered in this article is can Democratic Moderates & progressives co-exist in the same party. I would say absolutely not. The voters we need to win back the country have different values. There's no way to bridge the gap. If any of the far-left candidates are the nominees in 2020 we will lose decisively.
7
I can summarize your lengthy piece in one sentence.
Democrats except in extreme liberal districts should run on moderate progressive ideas that middle America are for.
Examples:
1-Spirit of Roe not abortion on demand.
2-Reign in the excessive of Wall Street not socialism.
3-Selected non onerous tariffs on the worst of slaver labor countries not a total trade war.
4-Staying out of foreign conflicts unless America has been attacked.
5-Defending any group that is discriminated against not identity obsession or social engineering.
and last but not least, a national, affordable, quality health plan not total socialistic medicine.
If the democrats follow the above they have a great shot of winning all three branches if not they have a great shot of giving Trump another four yrs.
10
I find so many of these future scenarios as troubling. They seem to imply that there is a future that resembles current norms. Due to the Republicans we are on a course toward catastrophic climate changes. I live in the south ,on the coast and my career has been outside. It is hotter here! The tides are already higher here! It makes so many of these calculations seem so futile. Trump and the no science GOP are corrupt .
3
"How Can Democrats Keep Themselves From Overreaching?"
Overreaching? You do mean about the man whose greedy grasp is so large that he now has the world--the entire world-- in a choke-hold, right?
Because if not, Mr. Edsall, you are a huge part of the problem of normalizing this president. The rising polls calling not just for impeachment, but for conviction and removal from office, suggest that you are lagging well behind the country which recognizes that this monstrously inept criminal can't be allowed to continue to do harm.
The morning news breaks and he's breaking the Constitution. Pundits, lawyers, historical experts and journalists were laughing out loud at the absurd letter his "lawyers" sent asserting that impeachment isn't legal. Right. Except for the bit where the founders actually put it in, and it's been used several times.
The day ends on the much more sobering note that Turkey --aided by Putin--is now primed to send troops into Syria. Meaning actual men, women and children are about to die because this country refused to act when there was overwhelming evidence that this deplorable man should have been removed from office months after taking it.
Because DJT was transparent about his intent to use the highest office in the land as his personal cash register from day one. Our myriad crises all track back to breaking the Emoluments Clause, an impeachable offense for a reason.
No such thing as "overreach" when gargantuan problems face a nation.
6
As a working class progressive female, I highly dislike having to tip toe around the working class voters and even the minority voters."The art of being wise is knowing what to overlook". It's high time that my other non-college educated compadres wise up and vote. Let the gop go around being fearful. A Dem vote should be nothing to fear for us.
And yes, maybe the Democrats should not be too lofty in their goals, and do a little decluttering themselves or stop dumbing down voters. I always have this feeling that they are afraid of talking down to people---if you have an idea, explain it, expound on it, and put it in simple yet detailed terms. There is nothing worse for than leaving fissures open to fear.
59
@duvcu Your "non-college educated compadres" voted in 2016 by the droves and elected Trump.
3
They can’t help themselves. Like the parable of the scorpion and the frog. It’s their nature.
6
I believe the theory and analysis are valuable and intriguing. But in the final analysis, aren't most people most interested in electing someone who "feels right," who seems most like themselves, who represents what they think is missing in the country, who counteracts the bad stuff the last guy stood for, who will clean up the swamp, etc., etc.?
Progressive Democrat candidates -- I've been a Dem for decades -- are pinning a lot of hopes on programs that seem far-reaching to a lot of the heartland that hates Trump. I don't sense they are resonating in the gut like the Republicans do, who know the value of a tough body blow. The left-of-left Democrat "explorers" risk being at the edgy forefront -- leaving too many pioneers too far behind them.
Trump is going to outlive the faint-hearted impeachment inquiry because he's a fascist-minded ego-machine with a Republican robot parade marching behind him. I fear that at this point, vile power is going to win over ethical progressivism.
23
@SGK I agree, most voters, especially Republicans, vote by gut feeling. And in America's heartland, voting Democrat just doesn't feel right to many. Just the fact that liberals tend to live on the coasts and they don't is enough to make them feel queasy about voting Democrat.
As a recent NYT article about a rural town in Arkansas pointed out, people there consistently vote against their own financial self-interest and there is nothing anyone can say that would change their minds. They don't even expect Trump or the Republican party to help them in any tangible way. Much less would they want to accept help from Democrats. Well, at least not until Republicans drastically slash Social Security and/or or Medicare. At that point, just maybe, the lights may come on for them.
3
My biggest concern is that the fact-lite fear-mongering done by the right means that all fact-based analyses and messages from Democrats won't penetrate the right-wing bubble unless it's spun by right-wing fear-mongers to their own benefit. It's the pattern right now, after all, and it's been working for decades.
2
Democrats need to sweep themselves to power first in the House, the Senate and the Presidency with an enthusiastic, energetic candidate and VP.
Warren-Buttigieg, two of most intelligent, least corrupt characters on the horizon, will have no trouble mopping the radical Reverse Robin Hood floor of Trump-Pence and the Grand Oligarch Party in 2020.
Both of those two candidates actually 'tell it like it is' without getting lost in political correctness because they physically and spiritually embody inclusivity - a strong, intelligent fighting female and a wise, young military veteran who happens to be gay.
Warren and Buttigieg have bread and butter issues on their side, including healthcare reform, campaign finance reform, voting rights reform, 0.1% welfare reform and draining the immoral Trumpian-GOP Swamp of malfeasance.
Combine that with an emphasis and Democratic campaign and Administration focused healthcare jobs, infrastructure jobs, renewable energy jobs, rural internet jobs, education jobs and preserving the safety net that Trump and his misanthropes love to shred, and the Warren-Butiggieg will cruise to administrative success while the radical right continues their conspiracy-and-commie based Grand Old Propaganda campaign that activates 40% of the nation's amygdalas.
The Republicans will do their treasonous best to torpedo American progress by duping the masses with fear and loathing because that's what they do, but fewer Americans are eating their Grand Old Poison.
66
@Socrates
A Warren-Buttigeig ticket would be excellent.
3
@A F My dream team come true!
1
The US, like Western & Eastern Europe haven’t recovered from the 2008 Great Looting. Working families are barely making it, thus the emergence of nationalism across the board, Trump included
None of the well crafted quotes in this piece capture the rebellion simmering in the country: its Wall Street’s criminal activity, stupid. In fact, the FED’s Chair Powell, as we speak, is pumping billions daily to prevent another market collapse. Both parties, due to dirty money’s hold, haven’t done much to fix this problem. Mnuchin is at Treasury. Indeed, both still collect “donations” from this bunch - Biden held ten big fund raisers last week and met with his 100 top donors.
Losing their homes vs. multiculturalism: 2020 is the year of empowering workers- all workers. The notion that “younger, millennial, more secular, and unmarried, with fewer traditional families and male breadwinners, more immigrant and foreign born,” are the only great big hope and motivation for change , or that “multiculturalism” is a key major driver changing the country’s political fabric are false positives. American families want to be able to support themselves and their families. To ignore this simple and key point, misses the point. American working families have to get out of an corrupt feudal, abusive relationship fast!
3
There is no "overreaching" in removing Trump from office.
6
Remember when the republicans gleefully impeached Bill Clinton when they didn't have control of congress? They didn't care what anyone thought. What Trump is doing is much worse and the House democrats who are trying to do the right thing are always looking weak. I would show strength and if you can't then hire your own Kenneth Starr/Bill Barr to get the job done, as these guys smell weakness a mile away. The corruption in the republican party goes back to the Regan era, they are entrenched and know how to manipulate the system, asking nicely won't work.
5
They forget the staggeringly corrosive power of rightwing media led by Fox whose “stars” spew lies, disinformation & racism as if it were God’s own truth. And lead many of the neediest to vote against their own economic self interests.
4
I completely understand what you are saying and as always, appreciate your editorial. However, I find the handwringing about Democratic "overreach" absurd.
Trump and the GOP have literally put children in cages and demonized refugees, happily gutted environmental laws, and aim to restrict the rights of women and other minorities. Yet we democrats are always supposed to be scared of "overreaching."
Frankly, I hope the democrats shoot for the moon because once the majority instead of the extreme minority benefit, even the most obtuse may see it's in their selfish interests to vote democratic.
6
It's not left, it's not right, it's forward. We need someone who is looking for thoughtful, evidence based solutions to America's problems rather than ideological ones. That's why I am voting for Andrew Yang.
3
"If Democrats are lucky enough to sweep the elections in 2020, they will face an enormous challenge: maintaining internal cohesion while retaining sustained public support."
I confess I read this piece with a highly cynical mind, as it focuses too much on what Democrats should be doing for the future, instead of the raging fires they face today.
Our government seems to be burning down, in the middle of a constitutional crisis, and pundits are acting like the next election and how potential winners can address the issues of the Trump voter.
What about today? How are Democrats going to stop this lawless president? Mr. Edsall asks if Democrats are overreaching? My God, the only one overreaching today is Donald J. Trump.
If we stay on this course, we might not even have 2020 elections. While Donald Trump calls the impeachment inquiry a "coup," the real coup is unfolding every day in the White House, and nobody is stopping his massive abuses of power.
5
@ChristineMcM. Every vote is against something and for something. Opposition to Trump is a given. But if it’s all you got, you lack vision.
1
It seems to me that Democrats have not forgotten how to fight with each other, but they have forgotten how to fight with Republicans.
As Paul Begala pointed out "Trump has proposed hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. I did not hear one candidate raise that in the last Democratic debate,"
Time for them to start fighting Republicans.
4
Thanks Mr. Edsall,
At this moment of rage, my personal rage toward our current president’s outlandish ill-conceived actions, I appreciate your continued, reasoned, researched contribution to my morning dose of opinion. Its hard to see beyond the huge flailing emergency in the White House. Its hard not to be enraged by false equivalencies, etc. And yet you are looking beyond it, tangentially. That’s needed, by me. Thanks.
2
Democrats. Pay attention to what Begala says: warn voters of Trump's real agenda to get rid of social security and Medicare. As another pundit put it, don't get ahead on your skis. The future will be different and the GOP is not the party who is interested or invested in the future but rather to hold on to a glorified past similar to the South, Putin, and others who cannot accept the present, much less the future.
2
This feel good piece for liberals does not seem to countenance that Democrats may not win the Senate, Loose the House and Presidency, and loose the Courts for a generation or more. The article does not mention the word immigration. The article assumes the US will continue to have honest elections. It is an article written for people that are not prepared for apocalyptic loses in 2020.
7
This sounds like another attempt to get the Democrats 'in line' behind Establishment or "Blue Dog" Dems, but that won't work, as we saw in 2016. A Democratic base, excited about new and innovative ideas to move this country 'out of the ditch' we're in and start moving toward the future, is what will win the election in 2020. Don't allow the fear and incrementalism of political pundits to drive the party into the ground.
5
@kladinvt
BINGO! Corporate media will continue to feature these articles with big warnings about the 'overreach of the Dems'. Nonsense!
@kladinvt Kamala and Hillary or Hillary and Kamala
Quality health care should be available to all. Our gun policy should be driven by the interests of the inner cities, where the vast majority of gun murders take place. The abortion debate is a clash of irreconcilable ideologies. The debate is a morass. Keep your eye on the prize: access, both to services and the abortion pill. Poverty and crime are far and away problems of race. And attitudes of both Democrats and Republicans are to blame. You solve the race problem by embracing minorities, not by attacking your political rivals. The US is both a self-interested nation and a citizen of the world. Our immigration policy must serve both interests. The question is not whether the door is open or closed. It is how open it should be. And the single thing that we do that most promotes our quality of life is to pay our income taxes. The system is far from perfect. But your taxes are what makes this country run. April 15 is the real Independence Day. Pay up and don’t begrudge your opportunity to make America great.
Think logically and vote for a candidate who does the same. Leadership is much more about the ability to react to the unexpected than it is about a preconceived agenda.
5
The genius of the American political system is the frequent alternation of Democrats and Republicans in the presidency and in the Congress. The longest presidential exception was of course FDR, and that resulted in the constitutional amendment limiting presidents to two terms. So, I am not all hung up on which party wins a particular election, even if I prefer the Democrats as a rule. Alternation is a good thing. What is not good is Trump. And, I'd quickly add those Republicans over the past couple of decades who have been single-mindedly dedicated to tilting elections in their favor, even by condoning foreign interference as perpetrated currently by Trump. So, for 2020, may the best party win, and do so fairly and transparently. The interim event concerning Trump's possible impeachment, and possible conviction or acquittal, is a separate matter and should be allowed to unfold and reach a conclusion by itself.
1
I wish I were worried about overreach. Republicans have spent the last fifty years rigging the system in their favor so that they can hold onto power with a minority of voters. They realized long ago that they cannot win a fair fight.
When the Democrats are in power the Republican Party blocks any initiative that would benefit the group of supposedly forgotten voters they so vapidly claim to care about. Then they blame the Democrats for being elitist. One exception that proves this rule is the ACA. With all its flaws, even the Republicans cannot convince voters that they would be better off without health care.
Our electoral system is broken, voters are not fairly represented. It is more likely that the pendulum swing of independent voters represents their desperation and hope that the grass will be greener on the other side, but it never will be because right now there is really only one side, the Republican side, all the Democrats can do is block their punches. When they are in power, the Democrats can barely land a blow.
4
Economic liberalism or neoliberalism, more fully described as laissez-faire corporate consumer capitalism, was initiated in the Reagan/Thatcher era and took hold so resolutely to the political narrative that Democrats from Clinton to Obama have dared not deviate from its sway. The recent schism between the pragmatist neoliberal and social democratic wings of the party has managed to create in the public mind the idea that Democrats are responsible for both economic and social liberalism, so that they are now blamed for both, when the policies in pursuit of the former rests squarely on the heavily overrated Reagan presidency.
I think it inevitable now that the Democratic party will move to the left into what used to be common ground before the Republican absolutists took over. In so doing it needs to shed the stain of economic liberalism, and the first step in that process is to stop using the term thereby providing exploitable opportunities to shift the blame for where we are to the Democrats. Democrats need to start calling the problem for what is it is, and putting the blame where it rightly belongs: Ronald Reagan.
5
The problem is, like it or not, things are pretty good right now and people are doing well. And while socialism plays well in Europe, Americans are deeply resentful of free stuff on the principal that one should work for it.
12
@M
Ah... we're doing pretty well? Speak for yourself, M. My family has around $400,000 dollars worth of student loan debt, which we had hoped to pay down with the public service student debt forgiveness program (which is vastly underfunded and in disarray).
Socialism plays well in Europe because it works. This is why people there are happier than Americans and have a higher standard of living, lower infant mortality, and longer life expectancy.
4
@M
Americans are mired in debt of ALL sorts: medical, student loan, housing costs, etc. Things are very good for the 1%---never been better, but the middle class and the poor are struggling. Sadly, those who are doing well tend to be so insular, they rarely see or understand the financial challenges facing a large swath of the citizenry.
3
@Sage
Every generation has had debt. They went to work and paid it off, without complaint. People today want a free ride right out of college.
1
The Republicans will win the 2020 election by condemning Democrats as socialists. I just heard my first radio commercial from the drug/conservative complex calling Nancy Pelosi and her plans to lower drug prices as socialist policy, thereby undermining America’s business’ ability to keep America’s drug industry a leader in the world. The Democrats call for Medicare for all and taking away business provided insurance will scare voters along with free college, etc. Wall Street is beginning to spread fear of Elizabeth Warren and her tax proposals. The Democrats will be like deer in the headlights, and be unable to present a clear and calming explanation of their policy agenda and thus loose the election. Groundhog Day all over again.
10
Media and political pundits continue to get this wrong by describing common sense policy positions the vast majority of Americans support as 'far left' or radically progressive. Stop it.
15
The democrats actually had real power to get things done for all of two years, 2009-2010, before the Republicans took back control of Congress.
The major accomplishments:
1. Save the financial system - mostly bailed out banks and left the population with little
2. The ACA. Did provide coverage for a lot of folks but did nothing about costs. insurance companies and big hospital systems helped write the legislation and it shows.
3. A lot of financial and environmental regulations, none of which have real grassroots support and nearly all have been rolled back.
Instead they could have passed minimum wage increase, pharma price controls, gun control, increased support for public higher education - targeting improving quality of life for the middle and working classes. Had they done that we might be having a very different discussion today.
Maybe instead of "don't overreach" the message should be "don't be dumb" and "don't sell out."
15
@Concerned Citizen Um...because we are not other countries.
This.
If universal health care, lower university costs and a decent social safety net is "overreaching" then I'm all for it. Beats the heck out of a GOP that wants to kill the ACA and make health care even more profitable for insurance companies; underfunds K-12 education and allows expensive diploma mills to fleece university students for unemployable degrees; cuts unemployment benefits, food stamps, school lunches and other programs that help the poor and gives us the worst government corporate money can buy.
15
@Christy
Do not underestimate the scope of the change the implementation of these three social reforms would require. Changes in taxation, in the delivery and administration of health care services, in the administration of higher education. And what about the "legacy" issues. When post secondary education becomes "affordable", what do you do for the recent graduate laboring to repay the $150,000 he/she borrowed to attend university? And when universal healthcare arrives , what do you do for the victim of a medical crisis laboring to repay massive health costs incurred before everything was free? Nothing? Too bad, you came along too soon. Whether this would be over-reaching is for each voter to decide, but there is no doubt it would be a massive change.
@gbc1, A massive change yes, many countries have managed it. America used to be a world leader in almost every way, since Reagan we have become the world leader in billionaires and defense spending, not much else.
1
@Christy I am still angry at democrats for destroying my healthcare. Had an operation last year and after shelling out 17 grand the insurance covered nothing of the operation and I was on the hook for the 3,500 grand..dems pretending they helped people like me and thinking the world hates republicans like they do is the biggest conceit ever and why the left has never understood the right.
1
Although the composition of the new electorate favors progressives, the stream of messaging filling the airwaves and social media is more effectively controlled by conservatives. The facts, the statistics, the profiles about the electorate matter less than how political messages are packaged and delivered, however false those messages or slick the delivery. If history is our guide, progressives would be favored by the changing electorate, but conservatives would hold the advantage because of their talent for distorting the truth and aiming for the emotional buttons that animate voters. According to this theory, a slight edge for preserving political power goes to the conservatives.
3
@William, do you propose the Democrats should become more like Republicans and try to match the lying and cheating? They could never become as good at it as the Republicans, with so late a start.
Thank you Mr. Edsall for the insights.
To Levitz's point: There is overwhelming evidence that Americans recoil from 'free' in proclamation, even as we are ready to kill our favorite scapegoats to ensure we get everything for free and they don't. Take rural America and red states - largely dependent on federal entitlements - but want to burn the place down. There is some conviction there; they are ready to keep their children without health insurance and breathe dioxin just because it makes you miserable.
Despite this evidence, the crack-pottery on the left is loud proclamations of 'free this and that' - ensuring an electoral defeat.
Democrats are also rather disconnected with the asymmetry. Plainly, they are the Sisyphus (rolling the boulder uphill to have it inevitably roll down), republicans are the default option of an erstwhile white christian nation - they get to roll down massive boulders on the masses and watch in glee as pillars of freedom and democracy (for others) are destroyed.
E.g.: Obama is blamed for neglecting rural poor. Nothing good he did gets a mention, and republicans win on the sole promise that they will obliterate his name from history and undo every good he did. Trump is heralded for every act of corruption; even for ensuring soy beans are rotting in silos.
But there is no one running among democrats who gets the asymmetry and speaks moderation while intending to do radical good. Their default is 'free.' Ergo, they will lose.
1
@Kalidan
'Free'....what is 'free'? In early to mid-century America (from FDR to Reagan) we called it INVESTMENT in Americans, which it was. The blighted right took the words, investment and govt. and butchered them, transforming them into cynical, twisted right-wing memes: investment = 'free-stuff'; govt. is bad. Simplistic, dangerous nonsense.
Best way for Democrats to lose the 2020 election -- a Medicare For All instead of a Medicare For All Who Want It.
The House has passed some superb bills. But I bet 95% of the public don't know about those bills. For the life of me, I don't know why Pelosi et al don't get on TV and social media and talk about those bills and the fact that McConnell and the Republicans won't bring them up for a vote.
Why didn't Obama do more for the hurting middle class? Some of the failure was due to his natural reticence to stick his neck too far out. But most was due to Republican obstruction. The Rs knew that Obama would be blamed for not doing enough, not them. That, too, was a failure of communication. You and I know that Republicans are interested ONLY in giving tax breaks for their wealthy campaign contributors and getting rid of anti-pollution regulations. The voting public doesn't know that. A great slogan for the Democrats next year is "you did NOTHING"
3
Most of the American electorate just wants to return to the past. The debate is really about what part of the past they want to return to. A lot of well-off suburbanites would be happy to go back to the 1990s or early 2000s. Working class Whites prefer the 1940s and 1950s. Working class African-Americans don't want to go backward maybe, but given the choice between what they see as most likely—return to the 40s and 50s or return to the 90s and 00s—they'll pick the latter.
A modest fraction of the electorate actually wants to move forward. These are the people who like Warren or AOC and who understand correctly that our current economic and environmental problems are caused by the economic system that emerged in past decades and certainly won't be solved by trying to return to those past eras. In fact, the attempt to return to the past will only make the problems of the present worse. Looking backwards reflects a vain and futile hope to find safety and stability in a world that demands uncomfortable and radical change.
The dilemma for the Democrats is the majority of the population wants "MAGA"—either Trump's version or Biden's version. That's what they feel most comfortable with and are likely to vote for. But if MAGA prevails, our problems will continue to be unsolved and dissatisfaction will grow.
We need to get comfortable with progressive change. But that's probably not possible in America. We are just not a bold people anymore.
1
A very thoughtful and thorough article. We cannot now know if the GOP is in a death spiral, or just a bit down. The right wing never entirely goes away since it will always be the bastion of wealth and power. Going back to the origin of "right" and "left" from the time of the French Revolution, when the "right" supported monarchy, improvement for common people will always be determinedly opposed by the right wingers. The only unknown is how soon and in what proportion the American citizenly will awaken to realities.
1
Ryan Enos, the Harvard professor quoted in the piece, probably needs to get far away from Cambridge for a while. His left-moving "median voter" is a non-existent, meaningless abstraction.
There are, and will be for several more decades, far too many living, breathing, actual voters and citizens who will not see things the "progressive" way for the changes progressives want to be viable over the long-term if enacted at all.
Instead, if Democrats are smart enough to realize that some national unity and consensus is the only firm ground on which to stand, they will ask and carefully answer the very questions posed by Eric Levitz about majoritarian sentiment.
3
Franklin Delano Roosevelt won four terms by addressing inequality and helping the disadvantaged gain a foothold in the national economy. Progressive policies work. For my raised-poor mother, raised in the depression, FDR was close to God. The Democrats have failed because they respond to the wishes of their well heeled donors and forget the people they profess to care about.
29
I'm not sure why the people in the declining parts of America have absolved the Republicans of any blame, but it is clear the people out there believe those of us on the thriving coasts are improving our own situations by selling them down the river, and they mostly blame the Democrats, who fuel their anger with tone deaf statements that, "Those jobs aren't coming back," and with policies designed to transfer income to specific grievance groups while ignoring the majority of voters.
Trump, virtually alone, claims (dishonestly) that he will help that struggling majority. As ridiculous a parody of an honest magistrate as he is, he will continue to have many of those peoples' votes as long as he is the only one acknowledging their needs.
Progressive, centrist, or even Dada-ist, whatever the Democrats campaign on, they have to make the case that it will improve the lives of ALL the people.
21
@Green Tea Yes they do, but many will still vote for Trump for extra-rational reasons, influenced by racism, xenophobia, sexism and sectarianism, unfortunately - not because of false claims of being concerned about their economic interests.
@Green Tea When Bruce Springsteen wrote and sung about "those jobs are going, boys, and they aren't coming back" ("My Home Town") there was a sense of tragedy and pathos. When Hillary Clinton and others said the same thing, or variations of it, there was no empathy whatsoever. That's why Trump won.
2
One point made that is not in dispute: higher education correlates with more progressive views.
Two hundred fifty years ago only a small number of privileged, wealthy men were highly educated. Most were lucky if they could read and write. From the number of highly educated, a progressive group became our founding fathers.
As time passed, our nation made education a public priority. By 1900, most Americans had some grade school education. By the mid 1900's most Americans had some high school education. States, with federal assistance, made grades 1 through 12 available (mostly mandatory) for all.
Today, a college education is needed for any living-wage job. College should be available to all, just as high school is.
The Republican Party is more threatened by education than any other single factor. Educated people are less susceptible to cultural, ethnic, religious and racist appeals.
Education leads to progressive ideas, the death of the GOP. RIP!
14
@JABarry :
"Today a college education is needed for any living wage job."
Tell that to my plumber, electrician and auto mechanic.
Or, better still, take a trip to Germany.
College is fine for many, but technical training is better for others. Expecting everyone to complete college is unnecessary and drives up costs for those who truly DO require a college degree to pursue their career goals.
9
@JABarry
As someone with a meager bachelors degree. I agree that it is increasingly the minimum threshold for a living wage besides trades professions. It has unfortunately led to the disenfranchisement of millions of hard working Americans who have had their jobs outsourced by short sided profit driven ideologies.
I'm currently still paying back student debt which has delayed my ability to raise a family. Progressive ideology would have me celebrate and subsidize uneducated immigrants (legal and illegal) and their family's while my job and wages are continually being jeopardized and suppressed by highly educated foreigner born engineers and IT professionals on H1-B visas. Progressive politicians need to focus on policies that protect Americans.
While I would agree that higher education is a noble and gratifying undertaking that leads one to a greater open mindedness. It must align with policies that protect and reward hard working American citizens of all education levels. Progressive policies on immigration undermine the premise that higher education and fiscal responsibility will be rewarded and lead to a financially secure future. The free-rider problem is the main reason the GOP, as corrupt as it is, will never die.
The government's most important role must be to prevent monopolies, which put too much financial and political power into the hands of too few. It has utterly failed to do so now that politician can be purchased by these very corporations.
4
@ed connor
Mostly true. Perhaps I should have said post-high school education is necessary for a living-wage job.
But keep in mind, college teaches critical thinking skills which opens the mind to much more than the how-to knowledge of plumbing, wiring a house, or repairing a combustion engine (which is already becoming more complex with computers and electrified engines).
Those skills remain valuable, but don't let that distract you from what I was truly trying to get at. The value of a knowledge of history, cultures, the sciences, philosophy, sociology, and so much more; a mind that seeks information and can distinguish between propaganda and truth.
The tension, in the end, is between the large number of not very rich people who, in general, are fairly liberal on economic issues, fearing cuts to Social Security, supporting minimum wage raises and higher taxes on the wealthy, in favor of expanding government influence on workplace protections, and the like, but who are fairly conservative on the guns/God/gay axis, and the smaller number of oligarchic influencers who may be relatively moderate on social issues but very conservatively selfish on economic ones.
There are those who are very liberal on both economic and social issues, but they are smaller in number and overwhelmingly concentrated in affluent coastal metro areas.
The problem comes when the the social issues, which are much more emotive, and less abstract, drive voting behavior--with a good old-fashioned propaganda boost, of course (which has been made easier than ever in a social media era). That's when the traditional economic coalition that drives Democrats to victory fractures, and Republicans fear-mongering sweeps them into office.
Democrats therefore start with a disadvantage in messaging; it's easier to appeal to fear and loss than wonky technical aspects of inequality reduction. Dems would do well to examine how Roosevelt and Truman communicated to the voting public--and should take the risk of villifying even the oligarchs who help fund some of them (as Elizabeth Warren is doing)--the loss in election money can be made up in emotion.
4
@Glenn Ribotsky Will the Democrats accept this?
Democrats struggle with getting their message out clearly and concisely. Many Americans watch one news station only. So their ideas and opinions get lost or drowned out by partisanship entertainers. Republicans embraced those entertainers to deliver their messages knowing those entertainers have no ethical duty to report truthful facts. After all, entertainers are kept in business by viewers, and the more sensational or outspoken the entertainer, the more popular they become to viewers. In short, many Americans have become complacent and lazy to the erosion of truthfulness and facts based upon their political party preferences. Those who control the messaging, generally control the masses. Which is exactly what Trump tries to control daily. If Democrats are to compete, they'll have to use similar methods.
9
As Mr. Edsall's analysis points out, a swing to one end of the political spectrum is always followed by a move in the other direction.
This is true in all Western democracies, proving that the majority of their citizens prefer to be close to the center and away from the fringes where lurk policies that may seriously impact their lifestyle.
1
The wide awoke might foretell the direction of cultural change but this is not a great time to stray from the basic tenets of equal rights for all that our system of government and our sense of fairness are based on. Social justice warriors take no prisoners and have elevated self righteousness above kindness and equal rights for ALL. It’s our rights that matter, not the color or age of our skin.
9
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills,... " -JFK
Such an overreach. We should have simply have chosen to go about 20,000 miles, and turned around.
25
@ExPDXer
That JFK quote was from the country that created the greatest manufacturing system the world has ever seen and won WWII.
The voice we have now is from the country that sent its manufacturing base to China and that has lost in Afghanistan but continues to stay there--for nearly 20 years now.
How far we have fallen, how fast.
4
@ExPDXer I hear you, but to be truthful, he didn't say that during his campaign for the presidency, but well after having won it.
Both parties always overreach. It is endemic in a two-party system that necessarily relies on building coalitions to adjust to emerging ideas and solutions. The rise of the Sanders/Warren "movements" signals overreach at the outset. As a consequence, the Democrats may blow an easy "gimme" election in 2020 because they cannot help themselves.
11
Increasing the level of mercury in the water, increasing particulate matter in the air, increasing the cost of health care for people with preexisting conditions, increasing the rate of anthropogenic climate change, increasing the number and range of North Korea's nuclear weapons...these and so many other overreaches are the problem.
While the author sites many interesting historical facts and takes a long view of what may follow these days of derangement the most important thing to do is to crush all Republicans in 2020 in increase the amount of sanity involved in running the most powerful nation in the world. If that is overreaching so be it.
18
As usual, TE bloviates to state much that is obvious.
Democrats have the ability to get complacent, and to alienate the passionate Progressives and Leftists, who then sit home or issue "protest" votes for the Green Party or something else.
I don't usually agree with Paul Begala as he's one of the "Let's not get Republicans mad at us" moderate wet-blankets who kills passion, but he's right about one thing: Democrats MUST point out how Trump's policies are directly hurting "real working people" (as if people who work at desks, or carry union cards aren't real workers).
Just yesterday, Trump's Labor Dept. proposed a plan that will cut waiters' and waitresses' income by forcing them to spend more hours doing sub-minimum wage work for which they do NOT get tips! As a hotelier, Trump will personally benefit from robbing these "real working folks" who barely subsist waiting tables of even more of the little they earn.
Democrats keep relying on the pipe dream of demographic shift to win elections without recognizing how the GOP has cultivated White resentment since Goldwater in 1964 (I was 9) but has not responded by creating ANYTHING to inspire passion since the Vietnam War ended.
2008 was a rarity, but not a shift. 2018 was the first time Dems REALLY rallied out of rage, passion, and indignation, much to the leaders' surprise, chagrin, and attempts to stifle and control it. If they succeed, Trump WILL win again.
And I am terrified that will happen.
13
One of the problems I’ve observed in Edsall’s analysis for some time now is a failure to define “left,” “right,” “liberal,” and “conservative.” What does it mean to “drag the country” in one direction or the other? The truth is that if you look at public opinion surveys on economic and cultural issues, the gap is on the culture side, not the economic side. Most people do not favor a smaller government, fewer government services, tax breaks for the rich, or, frankly any of the small government policies championed by Ronald Reagan and the presidents—both Democratic and Republican—who followed him. This is also true of Trump voters.
The one good thing about the Trump administration is that it has shown us clearly how corrupt the government has become and for the drastic need to drain the swamp. The real battle has been revealed not as a struggle between cultural conservatives and liberals, but between the people who can access the government in order to enhance their abilities to extract rents from the rest of us and those who can’t.
While the Twitterverse may grind its teeth at a candidate’s stand on Medicare for All, a candidate like Elizabeth Warren who has devoted her life to middle class economics and strikes fear into the hearts of plutocrats will resonate with the electorate in 2020. And that will change our politics for a good long time.
29
@Martin Kobren Boy, do I hope so.
1
It's great to see that Mr. Edsall sees that a blue wave victory on November 3, 2020 is so likely that he is warning Democrats not to overreach after a sweeping victory.
4
"Democrats must first win the White House and the Congress and then begin to address the deep-seated problems that have been neglected for far too long."
The problem is that almost any attempt to address deep seated problems equals overreach. met head on by defenders of the status quo in both the Democratic Party and the GOP. And, most ominously, the GOP continues to stand behind a man who sits in the White House who has demonstrated time and again that he has no compunctions about destroying our Constitutional form of government to defend the privileges of the super-wealthy, and stooping to race-baiting and nativism to accomplish that aim.
5
All things move in cycles. But sometimes the cycles are entirely reformed by new technologies.
The real trend is the terribly destabilizing impact of still-in-it’s-infancy information and communication revolution. These technological innovations are enabling fundamental changes in everything. The parties themselves will not be the same. The author’s piece is trying to posit how a 1900 institution will change a little bit in 2020. IMO, kind of missing the point.
4
Even after all Donald Trump’s shenanigans my Republican friends (yes I have some) are eager to keep him around.
So good luck, fellow Dems.
Bothersome? A totally Republican Supreme Court. That’s not supreme at all. Remember - no term limits.
5
Is it an overreach for Democrats to restore the principles of the New Deal?
Is it a betrayal for Republicans to abandon the principles of Constitutional law and install a plutocracy?
18
They have already overreached using Trump's guidelines. Subpoenas?! He is above the law since only he has "great and umatched wisdom". Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, says the Great and Powerful Oz! I agree there is a pragmatic nature in making sure each and every step taken in the process is done faithfully by law. Trump is trying to provoke mistakes. Why he is so angry is beyond me, however. Republicans are won't do the right thing. They are the do-nothing party in so many ways.
7
The problem with Republican is self-proclaimed justice, and that of Democrats is self-indulged sympathy. The missing components to harmonize this Nation's hatred and self-righteousness are Fairness and Gratitude. Trump won elections because he voiced certain legitimate concerns avoided by politicians such as border security. Don't you lock the door when you leave the house.
6
"How Can Democrats Keep Themselves From Overreaching?"
The real question is "How can we keep Trump from overreaching, which he does all the time with impunity."
6
Mr. Edsall argues that the greatest danger to Democrats is “progressive overreach”, and that Democrats need to address “the rise in inequality, inadequate education and health care, stagnant wages, and declining communities”.
The trouble is: policies that address the rise in inequality, etc. are precisely the economic policies that are championed by progressives (most notably by Elizabeth Warren) and opposed by moderates.
I agree with Mr. Edsall that “political correctness” is a problem for progressives, and that progressives need to focus on issues (such as taxing the wealthy and access to healthcare) that are popular with swing voters. But these ARE progressive policies.
5
We’ve already over-reached. And we’re completely unprepared for a Pence candidacy, so be careful what you wish for.
13
The ongoing public perception that "Political Correctness" is a policiy of the Left (and Democrats) is something that needs to be addressed. The GOP stands as deeply in that stream as the Democrats- the GOP gets every bit as easily offended and publicly enraged when it's constituency senses an attack- overt or implied: saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" being example one. Claiming themselves to be under constant attack. To the best of my knowledge (and off the top of my head), in recent time, the GOP has tried to push legislation at the local, state and national level to limit free speech (the ultimate form of political correctness) by trying to ban political protests, criminalize Antifa and criminalize groups that may not want to trade with Israel. The Democrats need to push back against the succesful labelling that they are the party of the Politically Correct.
35
@M The free speech suppression comes only from the left. Look at the "speech codes" on any college campus. Cities enforcing speech codes based on gender, not deeds (NYC). Then groups of the left who employ violence to suppress speech. Democrats believe in free speech, but only theirs.
2
There are a lot of comments here, so maybe it was discussed, but I don't see it. Missing from Edsall's cogent analysis of HOW democrats can outpoll republicans is any discussion of election meddling by Russia (frighteningly discussed in yesterday's Times), to say nothing of election fraud, primarily perpetuated by the current republican party. A democratic presidential candidate will need to significantly outpoll Trump to win, and to convince much of Trump's base that they won fairly.
6
@AACNY
What steps to reduce foreign interference are you referring to?
What strong measures against Russia?
I don’t see much backpedaling either.
2
@AACNY
Did you read this?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/world/europe/unit-29155-russia-gru.html?searchResultPosition=3
A "trifling conspiracy theory"? Really?
RE: Trump administration's extensive measures to reduce foreign interference. Please source, I'd love to hear about this. I'm equally interested in democrats giving Trump a "standing ovation."
It seems from this essay that we are still in the middle of a political transition. The strategy of the Republicans is not clear to me. I suppose massive increase in GDP, which flows to the top; ignores the middle, but which makes the country strong, despite unequal, would be a generous assessment, likely wrong. Trump is tragically (for us) ignorant and probably has clinical OCD, and likely Old Brain, Dunning-Kruger effect, and maybe early dementia and I suspect some Asperger's syndrome. He had been a useful too for the dying Republican party to extend rule that is pro-wealth, but he has become dangerous as a decision maker.
The Democrats should embrace that "The left exists to oppose arbitrary hierarchy and champion those who are oppressed and exploited by the status quo social order".
With Dem hegemony a return to cooperation with the power of wealth will be needed to keep them from cheating democracy again.
The R's have become a wounded animal and have given up honor for survival. After the transition, we will need their return to health and honor as partners in our great experiment.
2
The fact that Elizabeth Warren is climbing up in the Democratic polls of candidates , only reveals her appeal among Democrats but does not reveal how she will be viewed in a national election , if in fact Democratic voters choose her as their candidate. I think her appeal among Independents will not be received as well given her controversial mandatory “Medicare for All “while pushing to eliminate private insurers .
If in fact Americans prefer Medicare For All we will figure that out and that in turn will force private insurers to be only more competitive with premiums and benefits . Seems like a win - win to me .
I must ask Warren and Sanders regarding Medicare option or mandatory Medicare for All
, “ why throw the baby out with the bathwater”? Sure , hard core Democrats might want all of her policies but I do not think that the plurality of Americans will accept that , especially in the much needed swing states . That’s just my take , but of course no one really knows what will or won’t happen in politics .
8
@KarenE
Private insurers are destroying the US, the evidence is there for all to see and the root of the problem. Insurance must be eliminated and it's perverse hold on medical rates abolished entirely.
5
I would like to see an honest poll on how working people really feel about their private insurance. The people that I talk to complain about constantly rising premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
5
@KarenE
Here's what you're missing: Medicare is expensive. That's why we can't continue to have the middle/upper middle class give vast sums to their insurance companies (through their jobs). To make it truly available to anyone who needs it, we have to tax everyone. A partial solution won't work.
1
Instead of swerving from left to right, collapsing into the ditch, then grabbing the wheel and yanking it back in the other direction, and ending in the other ditch, why don’t we drive down the left side of the road?
The theory that the Democrats will be saved by a younger demographic that will be always be more liberal is a fallacy. For example, Susan Rice was on MSNBC and said HER son is a committed conservative, while her daughter is very liberal,.
The Democrats need to find solutions to traditional problems like healthcare and inequality — issues that appeal across all spectrums and demographics, and less about identity politics, while maintaining and expanding a broad spectrum of rights for all.
Gently reach for the wheel and steer it left. We don’t want to end up in a ditch again. And certainly not return to the swamp we are in now.
13
Build the vision and the narrative. The people will come.
People fear for the future of the earth, for their children, and for democracy.
Government is broken. Inequality grows unbound. We are all dependent on a fossil fueled and unsustainable way of living. Growth goes to where the capital and influence flows. The influence of techno-optimist billionaires in shaping the future is unquestioned. Is their vision where we really want to go?
The simple question -- to what end? -- is rarely asked. Muddling into tomorrow on what got us to today ain't gonna hack it.
Technocrats are short on the vision thing. Time to make saving the earth from ourselves our central organizing principle. Time for ecological correctness. Time to educate a generation with the vision and the know-how to save the planet from greenhouse gases, preserve the remaining biodiversity, restore the earth's ecosystems and environmental services while reversing man's disastrous planetary overreach. Much of this work needs to begin in rural USA.
1
People should remember what happened in 2010. Obama lost his governing majority in just two years because of Obamacare, and we were left with six years of paralysis and growing tensions that ultimately led to Trump.
The public doesn’t like Trump and it wants the Democrats to not be Trump. But public opinion is thermostatic. There is not broad or deep support for the Democrats to pass their own radical agenda, especially not Medicare For All. Some issue polls do show strong support for some Democratic policies, but these are thermostatic and can switch quickly once Trump is gone—the issue polls for free trade now show 75%+ public support for it, but that doesn’t mean it’d be a good idea politically for the Democrats to make unilateral free trade the centerpiece of their policy agenda.
If the Democrats try sweeping reforms again, we’ll get another Tea Party—and if Republican nativism and race-baiting are out of the picture once they aren’t in power any more, a good chunk of those Asian and Hispanic and college-educated voters the Democrats want to rely on are going to join it.
If they want to save the Republic, the Democrats need to turn down the heat, both in rhetoric and substance.
9
@HO
What happened in 2010 could just as easily be explained like this: When Democrats had power, they didn't go far enough. In 2007, Pelosi took impeachment off the table, therefore allowing Bush to escape accountability for the Iraq War and torture; and in 2009, Obama didn't hold the big banks accountable for the financial collapse, and then he allowed the insurance companies to write the ACA without the much-needed public option to guarantee affordability.
4
@HO It was 2012 when the Dems lost the House, and much of it was because of brutalizing, negative and dishonest ads about the ACA by the gop. Therefore, the ACA was not able to get worked on, enabling it to be sub-standard, yet many of those who feared it have used it gladly since.
Who's to say what too progressive, as
"Obamacare" was certainly presented as such, yet has helped millions. Yes, maybe now is not the time to pile so much stuff onto the public, however.
@HO you don't fight a raging fire with a watering can. Obama tried that and all it got him was years of obstruction and stonewalling from the right. We need revolutionary change to get us out of the mess we are in.
There was a piece the other day about the self defeating rural majorities. It's good character to tighten your belt when you should be investing in the community so the community just keeps shrinking as belts keep being tightened.
All thanks to Fox convincing them to ignore the fact that their rightful funds were appropriated by the rich donors to Mitch & company.
10
Yesterday on NPR, the whistle-blower who warned the world that Cambridge Analytica had used Facebook data to manipulate public opinion gave an interesting interview to Terry Gross. He said that his interviews with Trump supporters reminded him of Gay Pride. For both Trump supporters and gays, what mattered was a sense of self-worth, a demand for respect for who they were and acceptance of what they do.
That rang true to me and I think it has relevance to challenges to Democrats. The economic hollowing out of rural communities is an important part of it.
Republicans have manipulated the emotions of those who have been left behind, but they have also done nothing to stop the economic decline. Their ideology says that people have to be responsible for solving their problems. That may make Trump supporters in those declining communities feel even worse about themselves.
If we continue to allow the markets to make the decisions that impact society, we may have efficiency, but there will be continuing suffering. I think Democrats have to go beyond making promises and work hard to change hearts and minds.
15
While Democratic economic policy proposals poll well, they are hampered by economic reality: enacting very high taxes on the small minority of people who are responsible for almost all of the job creation in the country will result in a brain drain and economic collapse. If a dog catches up with a truck, the truck wins.
8
@Troglotia DuBoeuf Trust fund babies and hedge fund managers don't create jobs. There is a lot of static wealth out there that was not earned, but inherited or amassed in unproductive ways. Taxing this wealth more fairly to invest in infrastructure and education is not only the right thing to do - it's the smart thing to do.
8
@Troglotia DuBoeuf If that minority of people on the top paid the taxes they ought to be paying, that tax money would go in part to enable the rest of us to create jobs, start new industries, and recreate some semblance of the time when the rich were taxed at well over 50% of income (a boom time economically). That tax money doesn't just float off into space -- it goes into the pockets of entrepreneurs, that is creative Americans, who will spend it building industries that meet the needs of an environmentally threatened world.
5
@Mary Spross
In addition to raising the estate tax and taxes on unearned wealth, transferring funds from the bloated military budget to pay for human needs rather than human destruction would greatly improve the lives of many Americans, including Trump supporters.
3
The problem is that the cultural elites are the essence of the Democratic Party at this point. That is why they are so wholly focused on the Supreme Court, which has no real power over economic issues. The predictions of Republican demise will be as fleeting as in the past.
6
@Michael Livingston’s
Why do you think the Supreme Court has no real power over economic issues? Property rights are at the heart of what the Court decides. They go to the essence of economic activity.
Rulings against unions are just one manifestation of judicial decisions that shape our economy. Even the Citizens United decision has economic implications.
5
Elsewhere today there is a column by Mitch Daniels, the Republican former governor of Indiana about the challenges of reducing waste and inefficiency in government programs.
This is an issue Democrat’s should embrace, not criticize. Expanding the safety net and providing greater opportunity for the disadvantaged has to be paired with rigorous accountability.
Free college may be a great idea but it also has the potential to be a massive boondoggle. Just look at the amount of provider fraud and cost increases in healthcare after the advent of Medicare and Medicaid.
All existing programs are entrenched and all have lobbyists but democrats must be willing to cull the inefficient if they expect taxpayers to pay for them.
7
@Joel Sanders
MD is drinking the same old GOP wine. Funny how you invoke "accountability" but never for other kinds of government spending: military waste, subsidies for successful business, and billionaire tax cuts.
7
@David Henry
Going after waste in all those ares is important too. Don’t make assumptions about where I draw the line on accountability.
Military waste is enormous, much greater than in human services.
4
“Democrats did not do enough when they were in power to tackle the rise in inequality, inadequate education and health care, stagnant wages, and declining communities that would, in time, create a frustrated electorate — all too ready to elect a Donald Trump in 2016.”
The reason that this occurred is the successful strategy of the Republicans to block efforts. Republicans are adept at recognizing that it’s not what the party stands for, but how they are perceived that is important. This is why Trumps sheep support a wolf in sheep’s clothes.
If there is a singular problem with the Democrats, it is their failure to effectively communicate to these groups to enlighten them on reality. It is perhaps because so many Democrats are well-educated, they do not fully perceive the problems in communicating their positions. Indeed, if you did polling for so many working class white people that voted Republican, you would find that a great majority of them do not fully recognize what the parties stand for. I think that many highly educated Democrats take for granted that voters know what they know. This is a tremendous mistake.
Democrat should be convening Townhall meetings to present to the public plans for a response to the Republican positions related to healthcare, Medicare, Social Security and taxation.
2
@AACNY I really don't want to start a negative discussion. There are too many of those everywhere.
Please tell me the message that the Democrats are sending out that makes selection of a Republican more appropriate for working class white voters.
"There is a credible argument............. that the public is prepared to support a turn to the left."
That may be so, but does that matter? The issue is the dysfunction in the US government. The majorities required to actually change anything in a meaningful way are not achievable.
7
The author argues that change comes in small incremental steps and he looks at our recent progress in light of a two-party system that battles back and forth at the polls.
There is another change model though.
To save ourselves from effects of global warming (and the rest of the planet from extinction) we need to look toward the massive and instant change model.
We can no longer wait until 2030, then 2050 then 2100. In fact, our entire economy, including the current model of laissez-faire government, with unrestrained capitalism must change, and immediately.
Are there historical precedence? Yes. Look at WW2. Our industry switched on a dime from peace production to war production. And so did the civilian population. And, yes again, after the great depression, FDR reworked our economy significantly.
There is always some trigger event to set off this jump. It probably won't be the 2020 election, but some series of events very close. (Perhaps a major city being destroyed by a CAT5 hurricane.)
3
Such complex and broad analysis is welcomed, but how many readers can get their head around this, taxed as they are of time and energy that goes into the daily grind? Hence the danger of not dishing out the simple message that gets better results, faster, that is expunge Trump!
The democrats should realize the existential threat Trump is posing to America's democracy. They should establish a war room. Ask Bernie and Biden to clear the road for Warren. Turn in the articles of impeachment and keep impeaching.
Do everything to remove Trump. Save democracy before a civil war - that was not an empty threat - gets triggered.
1
All this has me wondering if the presidential candidate of the future is an independent who distances him or herself from the internecine party warfare between elephants and donkeys.
In some ways, there's not a lot of distance between two parties that are unanimous in their fealty to corporate interests. Both parties are tugged by corporate strings. Their telegenic combat masks that deeper reality.
It's possible that a young, savvy candidate could emerge on a platform that is 'conservative' (pro-environment; cost-conscious; smart spending of resources; reticent on global military intervention) and 'liberal' (focused on equalizing class disparity instead of identity politics by committing to universal healthcare and other safety nets). There's plenty of good sense from both political perspectives that has been lost in the dustup in Washington.
A new party getting traction with the electorate is not impossible—it might be inevitable.
1
@Questioner Do you really think repubs are "pro-environment" or "cost-conscious," care about "smart spending" of resources or are reticent re use of the military? If so, I'd love to see the color of the sky in your world.
"Democrats did not do enough when they were in power to tackle the rise in inequality, inadequate education and health care, stagnant wages, and declining communities that would, in time, create a frustrated electorate — all too ready to elect a Donald Trump in 2016."
It's really disingenuous to say that the Democrats didn't do enough. Obama did his best, but he was stonewalled after the first year by McConnell & Co., who completely blocked all attempts to address the issues listed.
11
Well, he could have, but didn’t, prosecute the architects of the 2008 recession. Instead, he bailed them out. Not a single one went to jail. But millions of main streeters lost their homes.
114
@JJ
Exactly, JJ. That's a major part of why Obama voters turned to Trump -- Obama failed them.
9
Then his best simply wasn’t good enough.
5
My ongoing question is how often people who are sure they are right are wrong.
Stories this morning included a UK treatment program for sex offenders that increases rates of recidivism--and it's been going on for 30 years.
Programs that focus on racial inequity above all else and end up increasing disparity--see the Seattle school system.
The only that's sure is that people are wrong a lot of the time. That includes the well intentioned.
16
The problem is that these theories fall apart when they meet the "Candidate."
Hillary Clinton, who I voted for, substantially offered an "Obama third term," but she was a terrible candidate. And she lost (I know, I know, she "won" the popular vote, but that's not how it works).
So the real question now is, which Democrat can beat Trump? Fundamentally, their policies are similar, so it comes down to the candidate.
Biden? His son got 50K a month because his dad was VP. He's falling in the polls. He's done.
Sanders. Sad to say, but his health is an issue.
Warren? Lied about her heritage, and it seems also whether or not she was fired for being pregnant. Only 2 compared to Trump's many, but....
So while all of these "theories" here may be true, the Candidate is the most important thing. Period. And I fear, no Democrat running can beat Trump.
15
@profwilliams
I don't agree that Warren "lied" about her heritage or the reasons she left her job many years ago, but it's worrisome that you cite those two assertions as reasons she can't be elected president.
I think the major challenges she faces are her gender and the massive Republican PR machine. She can't do anything about being a woman, but perhaps Democrats can work very hard to create their own PR machine that will change hearts and minds. They have never been really good at doing that and it has hurt them.
9
@profwilliams - If the integrity of the candidate is all important, how in the world did Trump get elected?
PS It is clear that you have never read Hillary's platform or detailed fact sheets or you would not have said she offered an "Obama third term." Here two small sections:
"Prosecuting individuals when they break the law. Hillary would extend the statute of limitations for prosecuting major financial frauds, enhance whistleblower rewards, and provide the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission with more resources to prosecute wrongdoing."
"Holding executives accountable when they are responsible for their subordinates’ misconduct. Hillary believes that when corporations pay large fines to the government for violating the law, those fines should cut into the bonuses of the executives who were responsible for or should have caught the problem. And when egregious misconduct happens on an executive’s watch, that executive should lose his or her job."
She lost because of a perfect storm of media irresponsibility by avoiding coverage of policy, Comey's unethical behavior, and a decades long campaign of lies about her.
4
@profwilliams how savvy, and terrifying... I have to hope the collective revulsion for Trump overcomes the bland choice on the left.
We live in a knowledge based world. Machines and the computers that drive them are rapidly supplanting unskilled and low skilled work. When AI advances, many white collar jobs will also be threatened.
Looking at a bell curve of IQ, fully 48% of the population has an IQ between 70 and 100. There are no factory jobs for them to participate in anymore. How do you teach a skill set that requires an IQ of 110 to someone with an IQ of 90?
People are not rational, we are emotional, even those with high IQ. Everything we do is done to satisfy our emotions. What is one of the most prevalent and basic of emotions? Jealousy. Even the ancient bible got that right.
Jealousy leads to spite and hate. Trump and the Republicans have leveraged off of mass jealousy to instill spite and hatred. Much of the support for Trump isn't based in helping those who have been left out. It's in hurting those who have been left in.
So how do Democrats try to get the left out left in? They want to use social programs. But the left out considerers those programs socialism and reject them. They consider them to be patronizing, being looked down upon, and attacks on their culture.
These divisions have become so hardened and entrenched, that there may not be a way to re include the left out. Due to the exploitation of this miasma by the GOP, the only solution may be to vote them out of power as demographics allow. The left out have made their choices and will have to contend with them.
6
@Bruce Rozenblit, I think your pessimism is unwarranted. Technological advancement can also make jobs which formerly required skills easy to do for people of low IQ. When machines are smart, their operators do not have to be.
@Bruce Rozenblit "How do you teach a skill set that requires an IQ of 110 to someone with an IQ of 90?"
My experience is that an IQ within the normal range of 90 to 110 is an indicator of normal ability and not an indicator of inability. The three indicators of performance are:
1. the individual's motivation to succeed;
2. the supervisor's ability to train the individual; and
3. the supervisor's coaching skills (observing and evaluating performance, and making meaningful suggestions for improvement).
That is not to say that every employee can do every job. What I am saying is that almost every employee with normal intelligence, motivation, training and coaching can succeed at least one job in every well run business.
The country is united around one thing: we need to be running our government differently.
Biden’s argument that we need to return to “normal “ is failing to resonate. The Democratic candidates that are least associated with change (Buttigieg, Klobuchar) are stuck in single digits in the polls, even though both are otherwise attractive.
We need big change, or to borrow the phrase from my candidate, “big, structural change”. Yes, I’m white, educated, urban and more affluent than most. I would not stand to benefit directly from the policy changes that Elizabeth has proposed.
But I want to be a citizen of a country that aims to raise the fortunes of the lost, the least and the last. I want to promote good health, stronger communities and a culture of decency.
That is not “over-reaching”.
80
@Cousy I'm curious where you got your information on Buttigieg if you think he is not associated or for change. That's like his entire platform. Did you mean Joe Biden?
@Galt
I'm not talking about information - I'm talking about his perceived niche in the primary marketplace (and I really like Mayor Pete). In the larger imagination, Pete is more in the "return to decency" camp than he is the "structural change" camp.
For better or worse, that message isn't selling right now.
2
@cousy
So very well said. Democrats (or Republicans) would probably get more actual governing done and garner more public support if they framed the discussion in a “rising tide lifts all boats” way. Enough of the Super Yachts (or even modest day cruisers) thinking it’s ok to sail right over the rest of the dinghies.
1
The key observation in his piece is that Obama didn't do enough on "inequality, inadequate education and health care, stagnant wages, and declining communities." Republicans love to call him a radical and a socialist. In fact, he was very conservative Democrat when it came to economic matters. He never questioned the basic Clinton-Bush economic model he was handed, even though it had led to disaster and played a key -- probably the key role in electing him.
Obama should done a much more modest fix on health care -- outlawed denying coverage based on preexisting conditions and a few other changes -- and then expended his enormous political capital to break up the banks, reduce the role of finance in the economy, aggressively expose and wherever possible prosecute wrongdoing related to the 2008 financial meltdown, vigorously enforce anti-trust laws, promote unions, reform NFTA and other trade agreements and fight for more progressive taxation.
It would be unfair to blame Obama for Trump, but I think it is to fair to say he failed to fully grasp the forces that swept him into power and act on them. That missed opportunity to transform or at least significantly change the country's economic system laid the groundwork for the disaster that is unfolding before out eyes.
47
@Christopher Hoffman
What you've written about Obama is certainly true. It would be ironic if his failure to make any substantive change in the status quo created a political environment wherein a thing like Trump could become President, whose sheer venality finally forced a significant and positive transformation throughout the country's institutions.
1
@Christopher Hoffman I would say that since the Democratic candidate in 2016 got 3 million more popular votes than Trump that all this teeth gnashing is nonsensical. Trump won the Electoral College and if the Dems focus on those states they shouldn’t have a problem in 2020.
However, you and others make a BIG ERROR if you think that if Trump is not convicted and removed from office he is about to let a perfectly good election go to waste you are very much mistaken. He will do everything in his power and then some to undermine and deligitimate that election. If it goes to the Congress he wins because Republicans never abandon their own and if it is another Bush v. Gore a Republican dominated SC will decide for the Republican — again.
The public remains incredibly naive if it continues to believe that the Republican Party is interested in fair elections rather than winning by any means. We know from their own writing and statements that political power is their most important goal. We should believe them and act accordingly.
4
@John Bacher Trump "forced a significant and positive transformation throughout the country's institutions"? Perhaps someone "not of this Earth" could explain the positive aspects to me.
“For about 20 years, Democratic strategists have been arguing that demographic change will soon provide Democrats a durable advantage. They failed to foresee the force of the white backlash against these demographic trends.”
And political experts apparently seem unable to realize the backlash generates a still-more powerful backlash. Ed Gillespie’s race-baiting sunk him in the Virginia governor’s race in 2017; Trump’s screaming about caravans may have deepened the landslide against him in 2018.
Is there a reason we just continue to ignore these very recent lessons? Is there a reason the advice for Democrats is to continually go into a defensive crouch? Because experience increasingly says that it pays to be assertive and unapologetic when defending our rich, pluralistic society.
7
Tom, from my POV, this election will be the easier one; the Trump / GOP revulsion factor is that high among a substantial majority of the likely 2020 electorate; the Democrats real challenge will come in 2022 (just as it did in 2010).
IMHO, liberal identity politics is today only fueling conservative identity politics; this should be obvious. We were lucky last time with Trump - who is a train wreck of a leader. Imagine if a Ted Cruz, a smarter, less impulse-driven politician, had won?
Furthermore, Democrats will not be able to control the Senate and House for the necessary decade or more (given all that needs to be done, both in the aftermath of the Trump Presidency and the still lingering aftermath of the world financial crisis) without cementing their hold on a reasonable segment of the white working-class (especially when it comes to holding seats in western Senate states).
Thus, Democrats need to remain pragmatic, even in victory.
Economic fairness issues that cut across ethnic and racial lines are best for Democrats; anything controversial must enjoy broad support (like the support of the 70% who currently tell pollsters that they want the Federal Government more involved in the delivery of health care - as opposed to roughly 15% that support the abolishment of private insurance).
We have perhaps 15 years to arrest climate change - and with the GOP having become the party of denial, any loss of control will only lead to sabotage of this effort.
20
@Matthew Carnicelli
"... We have perhaps 15 years to arrest climate change …"
I agree with your comment with one exception: it is no longer possible to arrest climate change.
The Keeling curve is currently at 415 ppm. Global heating (which drives the climate crisis) is already on a roll, ramping up over time, and baked in for decades to come no matter what action anybody takes.
We are now, and have been for at least 3 decades, in damage control mode. We are now relegated to attempt to delay and mitigate the onset of the multitude variegated looming environmental disasters. There will be no arresting of anything.
16
@AACNY I imagine such stances will not dominate the general election campaign and senate races as much as the primaries.
@Matthew Carnicelli Really super comment Matthew. "Overreaching" is not as much a problem as under inspiring and under selling.
Do: Talk about how all people should be able to access housing and jobs without discrimination. Appeal to people's love of their own personal liberty by pointing out that all men and women should be allowed to present themselves as they choose without getting fired from work.
Don't: Celebrate two muscled boys in wigs and eyeliner for beating a bunch of high school girls at their own track championship, or regurgitate junvenile things from Twitter like a "Transwoman is a woman, No Debate!"
Do: Appeal to people's sense of fairness and liberty by pointing out that African Americans are often targeted for minor, and often superficial, infractions that involve things white people usually get away with, very often to extort for fines for municipalities.
Don't: Create victim narratives around people who were shot by police while engaging in violently criminal behavior.
Do: Advocate for policies, taxation structures, and job and consumer protections that promote economic prosperity for all people who work hard, including low skill workers.
Don't: Engage in class warfare or demonize people just for being successful.
Do: Advocate for changes to our healthcare and higher education systems that will help control run away prices, bloated administrations, and make those public goods more accessible to all.
Don't: Just simply promise Free Stuff and say it will be wonderful, like in Europe, without having any clue how healthcare or higher education works in Europe.
75
@AACNY
Its too bad that the issue is so polarized. Things like dress and how one presents themselves are superficial and culturally conditioned. In a free society, with many cultures, you should be able to dress how you feel most comfortable irregardless of sex.
People with Gender Dysphoria in should have a right to present themselves as the opposite sex as part of their treatment, use other pronouns, or use the bathroom of their choice, which are all very public anyway, and which people frequently use without regard to sex (for example children going to a bathroom with an opposite sex parent, women ducking into the mens room when the women's room has a line, etc). This is just being kind and courteous.
At the same time, this does not change their biological sex. Even a SCOTUS ruling that men can wear women's clothes should depend on them being legally defined as men. Things that are segregated by sex for good reasons, like locker rooms and sports, should remain so. This is especially important when you consider that some cultures and religions, including those of many immigrants and people of color, have struct customs and taboos around sex and modesty.
Everyone's rights can be reasonably accommodated, within reason, in a diverse country.
2
@A F
Don't: Belittle the candidates who would attempt to create a level economic playing field by writing that they're promising "'Free Stuff and say it will be be wonderful, like in Europe, without having any clue how healthcare or higher education works in Europe.'"
Do: Realize that not one of the candidates is promising "Free Stuff", and that you have no way of knowing how well versed they are in European economics (although Elizabeth Warren was a professor of Economics at Harvard, so she might have a clue), but in fact reveal your own ignorance of how healthcare and education are funded in Europe. The details vary from country to country, but here's a clue: not one EU country devotes an atomic particle of its revenue to the military compared to the obscene amount wasted by the United States.
6
@A F To the average voter in the middle class struggling to keep up, this seems like common sense. If the Democratic elite and Party operatives miss this yet again, then they will let the Republicans walk all over them.
Obama ran like a progressive, but governed like a corporatist. Had he really addressed middle class concerns, maybe Trump would not be President.
2
This column suggests that our politics are completely derived from the roots up, that our population, as a group, controls the narrative and democracy takes care of the rest.
The billions of dollars spent on political influence must be a complete waste of money. Those successful plutocrats who have made billions from their business expertise just throw away their money to create political propaganda think tanks as a distracting hobby, like building model ships in bottles.
Rupert Murdoch hired Roger Ails because he wanted the best journalist in the country to create his baby, he just believed this country's foremost genius at political propaganda was the man for the job of creating a world class news organization.
Nothing happening here, just move on. The people will decide.
30
@alan haigh Believe me, the open borders Kochs are just as damaged a brand to Republican voters as a Soros or any of the other billionaire meddlers on your side.
What I like about being a conservative is that there's less endorsement of double standards.
1
@Tina Trent "What I like about being a conservative is that there's less endorsement of double standards."
Yeah, right. Maybe sealing the border isn't in the Koch cabal interest, but Trump's tax policy was composed by it. They don't support banning abortion either, but a bit of compromise on lesser issues to keep their base voting against their overall economic interests is still necessary.
History will not include Soros in its roster of villains. The same can't be said of the Kochs.
4
@alan haigh Thank you. This column is arguing for an unsuccessful status quo while also completely ignoring one of the biggest issues that helped lead people in a certain direction — propaganda
3
Democrats in power need more nuance. There is much that cannot be done when one of the branches of Congress is majority Republican. Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and Paul Ryan were masters of obstructionism and unwilling to compromise. The problem is Congress concerned about power not service to the Country.
6
At local, state and national levels the overreach of Democrats is a danger to winning elections. Extreme left positions are very popular in the most activist portions of primary voters. It is absolutely true that political correctness drives the small group debates of seriously motivated members of the Democratic base. But the overreach is wide but shallow. It hurts us at the voting both because the average American doesn't need or want extremes. We want improvements not a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" approaches.
7
Comments in this newspaper to the op-ed about the small town in Alabama that refused to fully fund its library director, saw many folks from similar fly-over small towns explaining the particulars of their (often former) communities.
Two things: 1) many of those remaining in those communities were the least ambitious and hard-working; 2) many Americans not from these small communities were getting fed-up with criticisms of city- and suburban- folk by those who lived off others' taxes and who had an out-sized political influence.
Sure, too many progressives live together and preach to the choir without having an idea of how others hear their "PC" screams. But behind that PC inelegance are serious desires to help others, live up to the Declaration of Independence's self-evident beliefs, and create a truly democratic future in a sustainable environment.
So, progressive Democrats should be more careful in their rhetoric, should purge themselves of their own bad habits (Hunter Biden's leeching off of his father's position in our government), but not hesitate in their actions to support their neighbors, countrymen, and fellow humans anywhere.
Maybe Obama could have punished the bankers while cleaning up their mess. But maybe that was not a real option at the time. We need to move away from glib answers. And we need to resist excessive self-doubt.
First we have to fix the problem of our representatives being fund-raisers at the expense of being states-men and women.
34
Maybe Mr. Edsall's question should be "Have the Republicans overreached?" They are clearly moving toward an authoritarian system with themselves running the show. And now it's so obvious that even people who don't follow politics can see it. Another problem with Mr. Edsall's question is the idea that it would be overreach for Democrats to raise taxes on the middle class in order to pay for Medicare for All. Of course taxes must be raised, but there would be an overall reduction in financial outlay for said middle class when they don't have to buy insurance and deal with co-pays and deductibles while still having access to health care. Employers would have reduced expenses as well, and that would mean that instead of offering health insurance to attract employees they could offer better wages.
But there is a struggle ahead because the Republicans will not give up without a fight - and they seem to believe that any amount of cheating is warranted in order to win.
232
@Marilyn Burbank No evidence for a reduction in overall outlays for the middle class. Never happens!
1
@Beetle Really? Try, like, every western European country.
9
@Marilyn Burbank Great comment Marilyn, thank you.
4
The public has incredible short term memory, as well as an absurd impatience. They want immediate results. When Democrats move to enact policies, results take time. Republicans are masterful at swooping in to criticize, and then take credit when things do change and improve (See 2008-present).
Having a powerful ally lie through their teeth (Fox,Rush, etc) aids this.
Ive seen this happen for so long I fear that it won’t change.
90
@LFK
Built in advantage of cheaters and hypocrites. Political correctness does not actually exist. Democrats absolutely failed to permanently raise the well being and financial stability of rural Americans while Obama was President, and that is partly to blame for Trump. White backlash and denialism are going to have be addressed HEAD ON.
1
Matt Grossman...pointed out "the last two Democratic presidents have had large agendas and attempted to move policy substantially leftward across issue areas, resulting in public opinion moving in a conservative direction in response and contributing to historic midterm losses in 1994 and 2010."
So, if the public is ready to lean towards the left on social and cultural issues, how does one explain the brakes on the two recent Democratic presidents, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama?
And Isabel Sawhill writes that "Democrats did not do enough when they were in power to tackle the rise in inequality, inadequate education and health care, stagnant wages, and declining communities that would, in time, create a frustrated electorate — all too ready to elect a Donald Trump in 2016."
The above doesn't take into consideration the Republican entrenchment on The Hill. President Obama had a majority for two years but was filibustered out of time by Republicans. The public, impatient, became weary and refused to punish Republicans at the ballot box for standing in the door.
If a Democrat regains the White House in 2021, there won't be an emphasis on "overreaching." The vast damage that Donald Trump has done to the nation will be the huge task ahead: repairing the gaping rents across the nation in every aspect of governance, a dynamic that Donald Trump eschewed, seeking only to improve his and his family's wealth at the expense of the public trust.
We'll all have plenty of work to do.
83
@Red Sox, ‘04, ‘07, ‘13, ‘18 And let's not forget the hits the Democratic Party took when Obama and Congress went all in for Obamacare. The cost was losing the House in 2010, as well as six seats in the Senate. Now, those who have Obamacare, including those who were told by the gops to oppose it, fight tooth and nail when the gops threaten to repeal it.
4
@Red Sox, ‘04, ‘07, ‘13, ‘18
The Democrats during the entire 8 years of Obama had a veto-proof majority in Senate and House for 33 days - not 2 years.
Yes, 33 days.
The Democratic supermajority in the Senate was only 33 days at most.
Al Franken was sworn in as a US Senator on July 7, 2009. That meant for 170 days Obama and the Democrats did not have a supermajority to break cloture.
Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with brain cancer in 2008, attended Obama's inauguration but had a seizure that day. Numerous reports mention his poor health made it difficult to participate in the health care bill negotiations.
Kennedy was unable to vote on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court on August 9, 2009. In fact, Kennedy was the only Senator not to vote, indicating his health did not permit him to do so. He died on 8/25/2009.
So 7/7/2009 to 08/08/2009 is 33 days at most.
Mitch McConnell set the modern records for the most filibusters during Obama’s 8 years in office. McConnell literally filibustered his own bill when Democrats agreed to support it, which gives an idea of how unhinged his partisanship had become.
GOP apologists have the word "overreach" as a keyboard shortcut in correlation to "Democrat." They're gaming the refs.
The Dems can demonstrate courage of their actions to defend the constitution, the GOP cannot.
7
To characterize Clinton and Obama as pursuing progressive agendas is fantasy. Both were centrists, and both got run over. What is needed is somebody to fulfill the role of Eleanor Roosevelt's spokesman. Only this time the woman can occupy the Oval Office and speak for herself.
2
Democrats are hoping that impeachment will seal it for them with the election next year, but while McConnell has said he will “take it up,” he likely has no plans to hold a vote. He doesn’t want Senate Republicans on record not voting to convict.
Meanwhile, the Fed will probably lower rates again by the end of the year, and Trump may have plans to resolve the trade war with China in order to send the economy soaring before the election.
So what do Democrats focus on? Cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security, absolutely. And of course the core trifecta of issues: climate change, health care, and gun control. If Democrats emphasize rejoining the world community with the Paris Accord, shoring up the ACA and reining in prescription drug costs without threatening private insurance plans, and instituting robust gun background checks, they will be in good shape. Right down the middle. Workable plans to buttress infrastructure and public education would be the icing on the cake.
Trump claims that Democrats are using impeachment to try to overturn the results of the 2016 election. But the House is simply doing its constitutional duty in holding the president accountable for the impeachable offenses of the Ukraine affair and associated obstruction. Democrats won the House fairly in 2018. Isn’t it Trump who is trying to overturn the results of that election?
150
@Blue Moon What are you even talking about. No Dem is talking about cuts to Medicaid, Medicare/SS. Those are totally Republican plans - because, you know, after the tax cuts (for the rich) we can't afford those basic programs to help Americans live decent lives.
1
@Blue Moon It's great to see that Mr. Edsall sees that a blue wave victory on November 3, 2020 is so likely that he is warning Democrats not to overreach after that victory gives Democrats control of Congress and the White House.
1
@RMS
"In this political climate, Begala continued, the best thing a Democratic presidential candidate can do is
'tell voters that Trump has proposed hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. I did not hear one candidate raise that in the last Democratic debate, but it is the issue most likely to defeat Trump.'"
I was just referencing this quote from the column.
@OldBoatMan
Nixon was associated with a burglary; for most people that equals a crime. A Ukraine phone call? Nancy Pelosi and fellow Democrats need to sell it well to the American public. (Will enough people care about the cover-up here vs Nixon?) The Senate will not convict; Trump is still their best chance to win next year ... who would replace him at this late date? It could be a close election next year, one that (ironically) favors interference. We're not out of the woods yet.
1
There is no "overreaching" in removing Trump from office.
And there is no "overreaching" is trying to right and neutralize the staggering damage he has caused.
287
@srwdm
I guess you don't get it.
If Trump is removed from office in 2020 and Dems take over Congress, the Dems must not "overreach" by shoving down the throats of America such far left notions as Medicare for All, amnesty for illegal immigrants, tax increases on the middle class, slavery reparations, etc, then the backlash will mean the Republicans will take over Congress in 2022.
And potentially the White House in 2024.
That's why Dems have to right the wrongs but not go too far with their newfound power.
9
@srwdm
Saying there is "no overreaching" is similar to phrases like "by any means necessary" or "no debate", are the tools of violent revolutions that turn into facist or marxist dictatorships. They are not the slogans of stable democracies or liberal societies.
Trump is president because he won an election. I don't like it, you don't like, a lot of people don't like it. He is a terrible president.
Trump needs to be removed by the process we have; first, attempt impeachment and removal, and if that doesn't work, elections.
And once the Democrats are in power, their most important task will not be punishing political enemies or passing an agenda "by any means necessary," but rather will be the restoration of our political norms and bringing the tone of our discourse back to what is constructive and appropriate for a democratic, multicultural, and liberal society.
6
@srwdm Removing Trump by the overreach of the Congress will not get Democrats any votes. Trump should be beaten at the ballot box. The voters are transactional, if they are offered things they want and need they would vote for the Democrats. I am afraid the Dems want to impeach Trump because they are not willing to compete for our votes fair and square.
3