A Progressive who runs the right campaign could actually reassemble a New Deal coalition of current Democratic constituencies along with the rural white working-class and lower middle class by focusing on actual economic issues rather than socially liberal centrists who mostly focused on issues such as gun control or gay marriage. And Warren isn’t all that radical either-she is just a harsh critic of the failed banking system.
On the contrary, the false gospel of neoliberalism died in the 2008 financial crisis. No longer do Democrats see privatization, deregulation, and globalization as the cure to all ills (which some of them thought in the aftermath of 2004). Instead we’ve seen a lot of progressive Democrats come to the fore such as Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Bill de Blasio, and so forth.
For every liberal Democrat you can name, I can name five Tea Partiers. Liberalism is dying out. It’s supporters consist mainly of old rich white academics and professional activists who don’t have babies.
The Democratic Party may be gaining due to demographic change, but that will prove small comfort to progressives. The party will simply be a collection of interest groups united only by hatred of Republicans. And completely uninterested in what progressives have to say about much of anything.
That is because Democrats are less interested in primarying supposed “moderates”. And BrainGlutton provided poll numbers upthread that showed the Tea Party to be a largely old political group. While its true liberals may have lower birth-rates than conservatives, enough children of conservatives (even if not a majority) are going over to liberalism to give the latter a majority. The progressive base is far wider and when properly mobilized is an alliance of academics, professionals, the middle class, and the workers against the might of plutocracy.
Why not? Many of the most powerful progressive political narratives such as income inequality has entered the public consciousness. Of course we will need to have good leadership to mobilize the might of the Democratic Party.
Income inequality is a big issue to their base because their base is poor. Getting their voters to vote their interests is not going to be the challenge. Getting them to vote for high-minded ideals like liberalism on social issues is where the challenge will come in as the old white leadership dies out.
I tend to see the Democrats as buying the votes of the poor with welfare and other “We will take care of you” nostrums that really just perpetuate the problems.
I tend to see the Republicans as buying votes of the better off with promises to reduce taxes, which pretty obviously the country cannot afford.
The agreement to support each other’s social wants and needs is what holds the coalition together. Once it becomes strictly about economic interests, the whole thing falls apart. What’s left for middle class women if the party won’t stand up for reproductive rights? What’s left for gays? Asians already don’t have much reason to support the Democrats but do anyway, same with Jews, mainly because the Democratic Party stands for things they find more and good, as opposed to the hateful Republicans. African-Americans and Latinos have conflicting interest in the immigration debate.
Once both parties become selfish, economic-centered collections of interest groups, then people will start voting their economic interests more reliably, which will mean trouble for Democrats as long as our country remains prosperous. Democrats NEED unity on the social issues.
What’s it like to view life reflected in a funhouse mirror? Holy smokes, where do I start? What’s left for middle class women after reproductive rights? How about equal pay, higher minimum wages, preschool funding. Which party opposes those things? What’s left for gays? Most, like everyone else, are middle class and Democratic policies are more middle-class friendly than the short bus party. Republicans prospered when people voted against their economic self-interest. It used to be in order to drum out their base, they could just put another anti gay marriage proposal on the ballot. That doesn’t work any more. They can still get lower and middle class votes by pandering to the anti-abortion crowd. If you’re not in the 1% and vote Republican, either you’re nuts or you’re voting social issues.
The strange thing is that economic performance varies minimally relative to which party is in power. The economy will do whatever it does more or less independent of government.
On the other hand, social politics are massively dependent on who is running the government. The POTUS picks SC justices, and that can make a world of difference.
It’s true that people vote with their wallets (to a degree), and that makes it a good idea to campaign on economic issues. But it’s also stupid.
Seriously. “Blah blah blah, Republican Party dying.” Yeah, I’ll buy that one when we can nominate Hippie Q. Atheist Homosexual for POTUS and win. As long as we’re nominating people who care about the size of their flag lapel pins (nevermind that they may be the Antichrist and/or Muslim socialists) the Republican Party is obviously a threat.
Then why do Republicans start winning at the $50,000 level and above? That doesn’t sound like the middle class thinking the Democrats are for them. And keep in mind your gender gap that’s been the difference between winning and losing is based on the “war on women”. Once Democrats start waging war on women, where do they go? Because let’s dispense with some PC-ness here: our immigrants aren’t exactly coming from cultures with progressive attitudes towards women or gays.
One reason people will sometimes vote against their interests is respect. Republicans lose a lot of voters they should win over the issue. Democrats win those voters because they give them the respect they deserve: for now. That’s why social issues are vital for Democrats. And social issues will only be progressive as long as the base is progressive. Once you import enough chauvinist pigs, you become basically Republicans who support Social Security.
The Republicans barely win in the margins over 50k (all of them are at around 52-54% range) and even many of these middle class problem probably vote based on social issues. Who said the Democrats would wage a “war on women”-we would promote policies pro-life, pro-choice, and women themselves would support, that would reduce the number of abortions such as expanding access to birth control, guaranteeing paid family leave, universal daycare, and so on.
So you imply Republicans are a bunch of “chauvinist pigs” currently? The Democratic Party of Hubert Humphrey was not one dominated by bigots.
The draw is voting against social conservatism, which is easy these days now that social conservatism has become a neutronium-stuffed tar-coated albatross stuck around the other side’s neck.
Why on earth would the Democrats want to import the social-conservative demographic that’s dying off and thus becoming unable to vote? (Insert Chicago-election joke here.)
Last time I checked 1972 was forty-two years ago. And George Wallace has been dead for sixteen years.
So if you want to argue that Democrats are racist now, you’re going to have to offer something relevant. Give us an example of a racist Democrat who is currently in office. And it should be something that’s obviously racist not something that requires an explanation of the racist implications.
I was replying to the contention that the Democratic Party of Hubert Humphery was not dominated by bigots. Not dominated, perhaps, but there were enough to nominate a segregationist.
The Southern Strategy was not fully implemented overnight, no, if that’s your claim. If your claim is that it isn’t fully implemented even today, well, you’ll have to provide a couple of examples.
Correction: The national Democrats did not, in fact, nominate Wallace, or even Thurmond.
You’re welcome.
Okay. But this thread has been about the current state of politics and the near future of politics. Qin posted a single line about Hubert Humphrey and you jumped on it while ignoring everything else.
Arguing that the Republicans were progressive on race a hundred years ago and the Democrats were lousy on race fifty years ago isn’t going to win Republicans any votes now.
Isn’t this a tautology? If I didn’t get taken out, I’d get the presidential nomination, too. It’s just that in the real world, I would get taken out so quick that nobody would ever realize I was running.
They came awfully close in 1972. Minus a fortuitous assassination attempt, Wallace was in good shape, and showing appeal far beyond his southern base.
The Southern Strategy, despite what Democrats like to call it, involved far less racial appeals than oh, any Democratic southern strategy just a few years earlier.
In any case, my point was that if your base is made up of a lot of men who treat women like trash, the party will eventually treat women like trash.