Here's what the Democrats need to do to win

Great Debates
1

Like I said in 2005: The Dems need to embrace economic populism, downplay cultural liberalism.

This election has shown that the Dems can’t win without the support of the white working class. (Yes, in terms of economic function and economic interest, there is only one transracial working class; but socioculturally, it is not so.) The white working class is, generally speaking and with regional variations, socially conservative. (For that matter, working-class blacks and Latinos and others tend to be socially conservative too.) Anything the Dems can do to win them over, without entirely abandoning their principles, is worth doing. Backing off on, say, gay marriage is not total abandonment of principles. WRT social issues, liberals should simply take comfort in the fact that time is on their side, albeit on a generational time-scale. The old religious-traditionalist view among the American population is slowly fading, even where religious belief itself is not. Someday opposition to gay marriage will seem quaint. Likewise with (very eventually) abortion. Gun control is a different matter – I know of no generational differences in attitudes there (perhaps someone can correct me) – but, let’s face it, liberals can afford to lose that one, indefinitely; gun violence, horrible and tragic as it is, is not an existential threat to America, nor is the gun culture necessarily an impediment to enactment of an economically liberal agenda. (Some RWs who talk of a “Second Amendment solution” assume it is just such an impediment, but they are both moronic and marginal, even within the RW; liberals can safely ignore that whole mess.)

Economic populism means, to some degree, embracing economic nationalism and rejecting the neoliberalism that has ruled the Democratic Party at least since 1992. It means having something approaching a real national industrial policy (something at which the Obama Admin has at least made a few half-assed attempts as emergency measures). It means doing whatever will grow industry and provide jobs in the U.S. It means coming down hard on outsourcing and offshoring. And it means treating immigration as a jobs issue rather than a racial/cultural issue. (Yes, I know it is mainly a racial/cultural issue to the RW, far more than it is a jobs issue; but liberals are not obliged to let them define the terms of the debate.)

It also means rehabilitating the concept of “class warfare” and spreading the truth that middle-class Americans, working-class Americans, working-poor Americans and underclass Americans all have a common enemy, or at least opponent-in-interests, in the overclass (very definitely including overclass liberals). It means demanding redistributive taxation (using exactly that word unashamedly).

Here’s why. Let’s look at the Pew Political Typology (2005 version; the Pew Center is planning to do another study late this year and publish the results in early 2011; but, past iterations have shown no very dramatic change from one to the next). Americans break down, politically, into the following nine broad groups (click link for fuller descriptions):

ENTERPRISERS
9% OF ADULT POPULATION
10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 81% Republican, 18% Independent/No Preference, 1% Democrat (98% Rep/Lean Rep)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: As in 1994 and 1999, this extremely partisan Republican group’s politics are driven by a belief in the free enterprise system and social values that reflect a conservative agenda. Enterprisers are also the strongest backers of an assertive foreign policy, which includes nearly unanimous support for the war in Iraq and strong support for such anti-terrorism efforts as the Patriot Act.

SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES
11% OF ADULT POPULATION
13% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 82% Republican, 18% Independent/No Preference, 0% Democrat (97% Rep/Lean Rep)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: While supportive of an assertive foreign policy, this group is somewhat more religious than are Enterprisers. In policy terms, they break from the Enterprisers in their cynical views of business, modest support for environmental and other regulation, and strong anti-immigrant sentiment.

PRO-GOVERNMENT CONSERVATIVES
9% OF ADULT POPULATION
10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 58% Republican, 40% Independent/No Preference, 2% Democrat (86% Rep/Lean Rep)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: Pro-Government Conservatives stand out for their strong religious faith and conservative views on many moral issues. They also express broad support for a social safety net, which sets them apart from other GOP groups. Pro-Government Conservatives are skeptical about the effectiveness of the marketplace, favoring government regulation to protect the public interest and government assistance for the needy. They supported George W. Bush by roughly five-to-one.

UPBEATS
11% OF ADULT POPULATION
13% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 56% Independent/No Preference, 39% Republican, 5% Democrat (73% Rep/Lean Rep)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: Upbeats express positive views about the economy, government and society. Satisfied with their own financial situation and the direction the nation is heading, these voters support George W. Bush’s leadership in economic matters more than on moral or foreign policy issues. Combining highly favorable views of government with equally positive views of business and the marketplace, Upbeats believe that success is in people’s own hands, and that businesses make a positive contribution to society. This group also has a very favorable view of immigrants.

DISAFFECTEDS
9% OF ADULT POPULATION
10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 68% Independent/No Preference, 30% Republican, 2% Democrat (60% Rep/Lean Rep)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: Disaffecteds are deeply cynical about government and unsatisfied with both their own economic situation and the overall state of the nation. Under heavy financial pressure personally, this group is deeply concerned about immigration and environmental policies, particularly to the extent that they affect jobs. Alienated from politics, Disaffecteds have little interest in keeping up with news about politics and government, and few participated in the last election.

LIBERALS
17% OF GENERAL POPULATION
19% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 59% Democrat; 40% Independent/No Preference, 1% Republican (92% Dem/Lean Dem)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: This group has nearly doubled in proportion since 1999. Liberal Democrats now comprise the largest share of Democrats. They are the most opposed to an assertive foreign policy, the most secular, and take the most liberal views on social issues such as homosexuality, abortion, and censorship. They differ from other Democratic groups in that they are strongly pro-environment and pro-immigration.

CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS
14% OF ADULT POPULATION
15% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 89% Democrat, 11% Independent/No Preference, 0% Republican,(98% Dem/Lean Dem)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: Religious orientation and conservative views set this group apart from other Democratic-leaning groups on many social and political issues. Conservative Democrats’ views are moderate with respect to key policy issues such as foreign policy, regulation of the environment and the role of government in providing a social safety net. Their neutrality on assistance to the poor is linked, at least in part, to their belief in personal responsibility.

DISADVANTAGED DEMOCRATS
10% OF GENERAL POPULATION
10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 84% Democrat; 16% Independent/No Preference, 0% Republican (99% Dem/Lean Dem)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: Least financially secure of all the groups, these voters are very anti-business, and strong supporters of government efforts to help the needy. Minorities account for a significant proportion of this group; nearly a third (32%) are black, roughly the same proportion as among Conservative Democrats. Levels of disapproval of George W. Bush job performance (91%) and candidate choice in 2004 (82% for Kerry) are comparable to those among Liberals.

BYSTANDERS
10% OF ADULT POPULATION
0% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 56% Independent/No Preference, 22% Republican, 22% Democrat
BASIC DESCRIPTION: These Americans choose not to participate in or pay attention to politics, or are not eligible to do so (non-citizens).

Now, of these:

The Enterprisers are the GOP’s real base. The Dems can’t hope to get their votes and shouldn’t bother.

The Social Conservatives are the Tea Party’s real base. (It’s really more a religious-right movement than the economic-libertarian movement it purports to be.) Aggressive economic populism from the Dems might drive a further wedge between them and the mainstream GOP; and if they form a third party that actually gets into Congress, the Dems will find at least some common ground with them on economic issues.

Pro-Government Conservatives, even more, should be attracted by an economic-populist agenda not coupled with social liberalism.

The Upbeats are not entirely in the GOP camp now. The Dems simply need to avoid driving them in that direction.

The Disaffecteds should be very amenable to an economic-populist agenda, it’s what they’ve been waiting for all their lives.

Liberals are a core the Dems can’t lose, because where else are they going to go? Ralph Nader? I hope that lesson is learned by now, and Liberals will stick by the Dems even if the Dems downplay social liberalism.

Conservative Democrats are a group the Dems need to avoid alienating at all costs. I shouldn’t be surprised if some went for Tea Party candidates this year. But economic populism, decoupled from social liberalism, would win them back.

Disadvantaged Democrats stand to benefit from economic populism more than anyone – the message should go out that the Democratic Party’s future direction is about people like them.

The Bystanders are always a tough nut to crack, but what goes for Disadvantaged Democrats also goes for most of them.

If the Democrats take this approach, they can build a semipermanent winning coalition.

2

So the bought and paid for corporate representatives that are the Democratic party would suddenly do a 180 on all their major positions because…why? They could be out of power for 50 years and they would never do this since that’s not who they are at all. But let’s say, hypothetically, all the relevant actors turned into radical dissidents and starting using this sort of rhetoric. What do you think would happen? The corporate backing would vanish. The coalition of business interests that is the modern day Democrats would funnel their power into a different venture. They’d be crucified by the media. Look at the hue and cry at the mention of the lamest of reforms.

3

Well, if it means doing those two mutually contradictory things, it’ll never work. Count me out.

4

But I like neoliberalism and things like gay rights and gun control.

5

According to that typology, I think I’m an Upbeat Democrat.

6

Which two things?

7

Growing industry and preventing outsourcing.

Outsourcing is just a form of importation. The more you get rid of the former, the more of the latter you will get. Next step: protective tariffs t stem the tide of imports. Cost of living goes up. The economy worsens. Bye-bye Democrats.

8

Answering for John Mace (I’m guessing what his answer will be): Clamping down on outsourcing and offshoring will not grow industry or provide more jobs in the U.S. In fact, by putting barriers of that sort in front of American businesses, you’ll simply destroy their competitiveness, further erode the manufacturing base, and cause capital flight to other countries.

9

I hope they run on a platform like that. It would be the stake in the heart for that misguided line of thought, because the voters will reject it in massive numbers. And well they should. It’s insane, pablum puking liberal nonsense. Robin Hood is a fairy tale. Punishing the people that have actually accomplished something by increasing their taxes for handouts to those that never have and never will do anything on their own is a recipe for disaster.

We live in a competitive world. Some will win. Some will lose. (Some are born to sing the blues). OK, shout out to Journey is now over.

10

Oops. Simulpost with John there. I wasn’t sure he’d be back to answer that, and I was pretty sure what his answer would be.

Anyway, back to the PEW report. This seems to be some sort of bizarre Rorschach test, because you’ve quoted it many times, but I read it completely different than you do.

For example, you seem to think that redistributive economic populism will garner the support of the Conservative Democrats. Did you miss the part where a key to their worldview was personal responsibility, and as result they are neutral on assistance for the poor? You can get their support for some forms of welfare if they think it’s truly needed, but if you embark on a grand scale redistributive agenda, you’ll lose them.

Here’s your real problem: The core of the Democratic party is made of up of two groups: Liberals, who are a highly educated academic class of people (often wealthy), and Disadvantaged Democrats, who are primarily uneducated blue collar workers and minorities. Together, they make up the Democratic ‘base’.

In other words, the base of the Democratic party is people looking for government handouts, and the smart people with the clipboards who promise to give them the goodies, so long as they’ll surrender power to them.

The problem for the Democrats is that just about everyone else in America has a problem with this for one reason or another. The only time that Democrats do well is when they expand their positioning out of the base and start promising things to other groups. Obama was elected because he made overtures to social conservatives, and because he positioned himself as a moderate. He promised a net spending cut. He promised to get the deficit in order. He promised to restore America’s reputation in the world. All these promises cut across all the PEW groups (except the Enterprisers), and he pulled votes from all of them.

The minute he got into office, he began a process of alienating those other groups. And his popularity began to decline.

Your problem is that you’re trying to find a formula for turning America into a redistributionist welfare state, and the hard fact is that you have no political support outside the Democratic base for doing that. If you managed to attract all of the disaffected voters as well, you still couldn’t get to an electoral majority. And a lot of the disaffecteds would not be on your side.

The only path you have to the kind of America you seem to want is to attempt to change public attitudes through education. But it seems to me that the Democrats have had a huge advantage on the education side of things for a long time, and they haven’t managed to convince Americans to turn to a European style social democracy, let alone a redistributionist welfare state or socialism. So good luck with that.

11

Well, it’s obvious the neoliberal free-trade approach doesn’t work. Isn’t it about time we tried something else?

12

Thanks for a thoughtful and interesting OP, going a little deeper than most do into the numbers. I was saddened to see all the responses that have amounted to little more than knees jerking.

I see huge gains to be made by making a grab at the pro-government conservatives. I do agree we will need to jettison neoliberalism to do it, and frankly I think it would be a good thing to do so: neoliberalism is what has kept the Dems from having the strong base among working people that they SHOULD have. Building a new manufacturing base, protecting jobs, expanding job for middle class and poor Americans is actually good for the wealthy classes, too, but they have become too greedy, shortsighted and stupid to see that. We need to follow the German model a little more wrt our manufacturing economy.

My one concern is that it will be VERY hard to get out the word on class warfare. It has been going on for decades, the numbers are absolutely clear and unequivocal on this point: the wealthy classes have had the middle class over a barrel and stripped them of much of their wealth. But I think most people have NO idea what has been going on. Fox and the conservative media can be counted to spin as hard as the possibly can on this issue, and the Supreme Court decision opening the floodgates to corporate giving for political issues is going to make the conservative spin machine even louder and more effective.

What’s more, neoliberal ideology has muffled voices on the left that SHOULD be calling loud and clear on these issues. I mean, on MSNBC the only commentators who do so are Ed of the Ed Show and Dylan Ratigan. You’ll notice that Matthews, Olberman and Maddow do not show much in the way of outrage on these topics, esp. relative to Ed and Ratigan. I suspect that is because they have neoliberal economic values.

One way to frame the debate so that the neoliberals can get on board would be to put it in terms of efficient government. That is, we need to regulate the banks to support main street rather than engaging in risky financial instruments like derivatives, because that is more economically productive and will avoid the development of bubbles like the one that caused the Great Recession. We need to keep companies from sending money overseas and outsourcing because it is against all our interests to have our wealthy individuals and corporations enriching themselves in India and China while Americans lose their jobs, homes and futures. What will those Americans do, after all? Probably lots of violent and unproductive things.

I do think that the poster who pointed out that many Democratic pols are bought and paid for by the Wall Street and corporate interests who have all our money. But if Dems can build the voter base, the corporate types will give them money even if they advocate things the corporate interests dislike intensely. They are pragmatic like that. Let’s hope that the pro-government conservatives are pragmatic like that, too.

13

For the moment,very little. A bit of political judo, give the other guys plenty of rope. Right now, they are crowing and high-fiving, and that’s cool. Let 'em, don’t get in the way. Let 'em talk about how they are going to dismantle the safety net, as many, many more middle class people fall into it. How many people who used to think food stamp assistance was for the depraved and useless have had a moment of clarity? Lots. Oodles and gobs. How many middle class professional people who used to think unemployment insurance made people lazy and shiftless have had a revelation? Quite a few.

Look at tighty righty propaganda about how HCR is going to hurt Medicare. How hilarious is that, watching them attack a socialistic program by claiming to defend a socialistic program?

They have had the advantage of being able to posture without actually doing any. In fact, they didn’t even have to say what they would do, so they didn’t. Anybody have a copy of The Plan? No? Tells you something, doesn’t it?

How many Moms are sleeping better tonight, knowing their children have health insurance on their parents plans? What are they gonna do, take that back? As a general rule of Moms, their Momitude trumps their political philosophy nine times out of ten.

Take back that pre-existng condition stuff? Wildly popular. Wouldn’t be prudent.

Shut down the government? Please. Please please please.

No, wait, let me re-phrase that. Please, oh please, do not wreak havoc upon the left by shutting down the government, don’t visit that total disaster on us. Anything but that briar batch, Brer Dumbass, anything but that briar patch!

14

You state that as a fact, but the vast majority of economists disagree with you. Including Paul Krugman, who has a Nobel Prize.

Don’t you believe in following the economic consensus?

15

Incoming Republcian Senator-elect on a government shutdown:

16

Well, not over a cliff, Sam, which is what led to the Great Recession.

Also this:

I think the actual base of the Democratic Party is people who have figured out or experienced the fact that the wealthy are systematically destroying the middle class. It will be a much tougher group for you to deal with than your fantasy Democratic Party base.

17

Which group in the PEW report does this identify? Brainglutton is defending his ideas based on the results of the PEW survey.

18

The Democrats need to buy dictionaries, and look up the word ‘lie’ and its derivates, ‘lying’ and ‘liar’. And apply them to their opponents, where appropriate.

“There’s no scientific consensus on global warming.”

“Liar. Here’s proof of the consensus.”

“The Health Care Bill has death panels.”

“Lies. Here’s the bill, what page is that on?”

“The President is a Kenyan Muslim communist.”

“You lying bastard. (massive evidence dump)”

Why the hell is the only politician in recent memory with the balls to use the L-word one of the lying schmucks it most needs to be applied to?

19

News to me Krugman is a neoliberal. But, I’ve never actually read but the first couple of chapters of one of his books (keep meaning to, you know how it is). Cite?

As for protectionism-in-general, I think there is sometimes reason to doubt the economic consensus. See Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism, by Ha-Joon Chang (no Nobel Prize, but pretty impressive credentials as an economist).

20

Oh, I think that would encompass the minorities you see as looking for nothing but handouts and the liberals you think are seeking only power via giving those minorities handouts very, um, handily. A lot of blacks, Hispanics and Asians are middle class nowadays, they are not seeking welfare so much as protection from the economic predation of the wealthy. They want the same opportunities white people once had in America, and I think it’s fair to say they will only get them if working class whites get them too. I doubt if any of them “get” the numbers, but they “get” the fact that the wealthy are sucking all the wealth out of the country.