Interesting article from Vox about how the Democratic party’s donor base pushes the party to the left on issues like climate and immigration, but to the right on taxes.
See, over here in the fever swamps of the right, we are involved in a civil war. It’s been temporarily put on the backburner because winning tends to make everyone happy, but we all know what faction of the party we’re in and what we want out of the next four years, and there’s going to be a lot of fighting. Myself, I’m in the small-l libertarian wing. I want lower spending, less regulation, more adherence to the Constitution, and stop messing with gays and minorities.
But I don’t get the impression that most Democrats think too hard about which side they are on. Bernie Sanders’ candidacy has brought this more into focus, but even Sanders seems to misunderstand what the true faultlines in the party are, as the Vox article points out:
The inability of the left to even understand the sources of its own division strike me as an area where they are actually behind the right and much further away from resolving these issues.
I looked at the original study. I thought the sections around figure 11 and 12 were more interesting than Democratic donors being a couple more percentage points to the left of the base on a few issues.
If true, this would be more support for the “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” viewpoint.
Have you ever read a left blog? Circular firing squads is one of their most cherished traditions.
Granted, I doubt the average on the street Democrat could articulate a difference between a liberal and a socialist, just like the average Republican probably couldn’t explain the difference between a paleocon and a neocon, but if you ask a couple questions you’ll figure out their tribe really quick. This is a bit more complicated on the left because there are many more fragmented and partially overlapping groups. If you’ve ever been to a leftish protest you’ll see it pretty clearly. There’s a reason lefty organization is so often characterized as trying to herd cats.
The study appears to show that the “elite” Democratic donors are slightly to the left of Democratic non-donors on some issues like immigration and climate change, and significantly further right on taxes and budgets. I don’t think any Democrat is surprised to hear this.
So we have elitist Dem donors to thank for keeping the rabble in line the last eight years and limiting the damage to only $10 trillion in additional debt?
Oh, there are sides, but I don’t think anyone really understands who the sides are. As the article points out, Sanders thinks it’s a simple fight between the donor class and the working class, but letting the Democratic base control things instead of the donor class would not result in moving to the left across the board. It would make the party much more focused on economic issues and less focused on civil rights and the environment.
What is the civil war in the GOP? Libertarians vs social conservatives? Anti-free trade, pro-welfare, anti-immigration white working class voters vs. big business interests who are pro-free trade, anti-welfare, pro-immigration?
There is a civil war within the dems, the Sanders wing has been gloating and complaining ever since the election ended that ‘Bernie would have won’. The entire Sanders campaign showed that the democrats can’t continue their current trajectory of ‘offer talking points to the working class, but do not actually pass much legislation to benefit them’.
On the subject of civil wars, why isn’t there a civil war within the GOP about competence? It seems with the rise of Trump there should be a civil war between those who think emotional and intellectual competence is important vs those who don’t think they are important. But other than a few outliers among pundits and talking heads, I haven’t seen it. Am I missing it?
That’s a big part of it, there’s also Tea Partiers vs. the establishment still, although both sides are now sidelined by the alt-right for the time being.
No, it’s not really happening now, but it was a big part of the case against Trump and I’m sure it will be one of the primary criticisms against him, just as it was with Bush. The party is losing an important part of its brand image. If we’d elected Romney, that would have been good. He was the quintessential Republican: rich white guy, but competent and realistic.
Did you not pay attention during the campaign? 3 out of 4 former nominees (including both living former Rep. Presidents) said publicly they weren’t voting for Trump. Many of the big names in the party skipped the convention. The sitting speaker of the House said he wouldn’t campaign for or defend his party’s nominee in the closing weeks of the campaign. (Ryan also called him a “weak and ineffective leader” during the nominee vs speaker sparring.) Sitting Republicans called on their nominee to leave the race. It may have not been a full on drag out fight in the face of trying to win individual elections. It certainly was pretty striking IMO.
The skirmishes were building towards the big fight once the election wasn’t in their face. Then Trump won. Since then it’s been more muted. He may be incompetent (and water may be wet ) but if they can manage him they can get big chunks of the establishment agenda enacted. It hasn’t stopped Ryan from trying to redefine Trump’s campaign positions if not outright saying some of them are impractical. They are just more polite in their disagreement at the moment. Winning helps.
I think Sanders is smarter than the article and yourself give him credit for (and I was/am a Clinton supporter). Sanders was far more focused on economic issues than civil rights type issues and while he was very much in favor of environmental regulation, I could easily see him choose to put that on the back burner in order to focus on economic concerns.
That’s what I figured too, that he was focused like a laser beam on workers’ issues, but I think his base also pushed him in a slightly different direction. Young voters, like elite voters, also seem to be about climate change and gay rights more than wallet issues and I think Sanders, being smart, started catering to that base when he failed to set working class voters on fire.
Exactly. This news was about as surprising to me as the revelation that some Republicans are traditionalists while others tend libertarian.
What these sorts of studies, and the OP’s rather two-dimensional analysis, also often seem to forget is that political positions are not always mutually exclusive. For example, if poor and working-class Democrats aren’t quite on board with something like climate change, in the same way as elite donor types, it doesn’t mean they oppose efforts to fix the climate. It’s more that they’re focused on actually putting a roof over their heads and food on the table. If you help them do those things, and at the same time show them that climate change is an important issue and that green policies can actually help create jobs, there’s no reason you can’t get them on board. They don’t have some sort of pathological objection to environmentalism.
Emphasis mine.
Yeah, you’re a real expert on those young voters, aren’t you?
Sanders appealed to many young voters by talking abuot progressive taxation, student loan reform, minimum wage increases, and a whole raft of other “wallet” issues. There are, no doubt, young people from comfortable backgrounds who focus largely on environmental and social issues, but millions of young people throughout the United States are more worried about how they’re ever going to be able to afford a house, or live within a 90-minute commute of their job, or pay back tens of thousands of dollars in student loans for a degree that, in some cases, barely raises their earning potential.
) but if they can manage him they can get big chunks of the establishment agenda enacted. It hasn’t stopped Ryan from trying to redefine Trump’s campaign positions if not outright saying some of them are impractical. They are just more polite in their disagreement at the moment. Winning helps.