Democratic pollsters say economic populism is the party’s clearest path forward. What follows is their blunt, unfiltered thoughts on how to pull it off – and why Democrats keep sabotaging themselves.
IN a nutshell, the Democrats should have listened to one of their leading men, Bernie Sanders, in 2015 and in 2020, Instead, they pushed Hillary and then Joe Biden (whose dementia must have been in full view to anyone who knew him up close). Two catastrophic errors that may prove fatal for the dems, not only in the coming election cycle, but more importantly, in the next.
In my view he had a fighting chance but we can differ of opinion on that - the point is that Bernie came across as standing on principle - the Hillary crowd are just a bunch of ruthless opportunists
This complaint never gets old for some people. Sanders is not a leading Democrat; he isn't even a Democrat. His stock in trade is castigating the Democratic Party. All his smearing of Hillary Clinton in 2016 did was help put that asshole in the White House the first time.
A good read. I would only add that if the leaders of the Dem party once again ignore the facts highlighted, we should believe them once and for all that they place a higher value on protecting the interests of neoliberal elites and wealthy donors, than on winning elections. It’s a choice they keep making over and over again.
How about consulting the grassroots activists who are fighting on the frontlines? We are not part of the consultancy class. Every person interviewed, with all due respect, was paid for their opinions over the past few elections. The Political Industrial Complex has too much sway in our conversations. Once I would like to see others like the leaders of Indivisible or Swing Left or Markers for Democracy quoted in these articles. Who knows, maybe you'll learn something new and helpful.
Listen or not, there are other voices that should be part of the discussion. Particularly those who don't earn their living by furnishing those opinions. When you are part of an ecosystem, your agenda is just different.
I think it’s a fair point, but following Anat’s work it is clear they are not taking her advice, if they are listening at all, and her advice is very much rooted in the grass roots operations of which you speak. Further, grass roots opinion is very important, foundational even. You still have to take that foundation and translate it into a campaign and a communications strategy and you do need expertise for that.
I have no issue with Anat, my issue is that the grassroots are not part of the discussion in their own words expressing their own thought processes. Allowing those opinions to flow into the discussion can only help. Not only in communicating with the party, but with journalists as well.
Given the fact that Trump has run the economy into the ground, even ivory tower neoliberals should understand that Democrats have got to address the personal misery among real people in the country. If they still counsel "moderation" in the face of no meaningful way for people to pay for healthcare, rent and groceries, then they might as well be Republicans.
I remember the minimum wage increase didn't pass in California, people like you live in a parallel universe, and yes, a normal Republican candidate would have easily won instead of Trump, Trump is the only reason Harris had a chance.
A big reason why the Democrat Party failed in 2016 and 2024 is because they became a popular front: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_front, basically a coalition of liberals, socdems, leftists, and even some neocons built to fight "fascism", as defined by a singled-out party that is usually right-wing populist. This strategy tends to fail, as they lack cohesion particularly as the liberals defect to the designated "fascists"- dissent between liberals and leftists is why the German Revolution of 1848 failed entrenching absolute monarchy in central Europe, why Leon Blum's French coalition failed to organize a cohesive defense against Nazi Germany from 1936-1938, and why AfD is gaining rapidly in popularity in Germany today with the cordon sanitaire by the traffic-light popular front increasingly collapsing.
Frankly I could not have picked a worse strategy to undermine the credibility of a party that represents the establishment liberals everyone is running away from, then to form such a broad coalition with no clear mandate and easy factions for the other side to pick away.
The points about democracy and the economy, and about culture war attacks are important, but I'm not sure I agree with your take on them.
On democracy and the economy, I agree that politicians like to separate them, and that's a mistake. As you say, they're the same thing, running in *both* directions. If you want the public to control their government, you have to keep the wealthy in check. *And* if you want to control oligarchy, then the public has to take its responsibilities seriously and officials have to protect the ability of the people to be heard and heeded. Democracy isn't a secondary issue. It goes hand in hand with prosperity at the top of the list.
On the culture wars, this is really important to get clear.
First, most of what Republicans call the obsessive focus of Democrats on cultural issues consists of Democrats trying to stand up against relentless attacks on minorities by Republicans. It's Republicans grabbing your wrist and saying "stop hitting yourself". What should Democrats do? Should they abandon the people being attacked. Hell no. They should continue to stand up and call out what's going on. They should defend harder.
Second, Republicans understand something that leading Democrats refuse to learn. That man does *not* live by bread alone. They understand that people care down to their souls about other things, most importantly, they care about whether they belong to the group. Republicans say, "YES you belong, and they way you know that is because THEY DON'T - and we'll back up that exclusion with guns and prisons and laws and media that tells you every day why they shouldn't belong and you should."
The answer to an attack based on belonging isn't to pivot to the economy and ignore the attack. That misses the point. Ignoring that people care deeply about belonging doesn't make it go away. The answer is to marry the attack and the economy together. "They want to make you hate other people who never hurt you so that they can steal from you. If we all stick together, we can all prosper. If you throw your neighbor under the bus, the jackals are coming for you next."
Democrats are so afraid to make the case for the "other": for minorities, for immigrants. They're so afraid of being put on the wrong side of "in group/out group" fights. Republicans know it and they use that fear every day like a club, beating Democrats with it. Democrats need to learn: they can't win, and they can't have a vision worth fighting for, if they don't let go of this fear and defend people who need defending. Make it about Us, not Us vs. Them.
When we mock the Democrats love of Kitchen Table Issues, this is what we're mocking. Democratic leaders think that message discipline on the economy is a strength when it's clear that it's really a cover for fear of standing up for *all* of us.
Thanks for this article. There's a lot to like in it, especially the points about avoiding centrism, picking fights, and naming enemies.
I live in Michigan and it's an interesting race for an open Senate seat. Haley Stevens is a party-chosen moderate, so she's out for me. But the other two, Mallory McMorrow and Abdul El-Sayed are more interesting. But there's the thing: McMorrow stakes her reputation on being a fighter but she won't say who and what she's fighting. She might actually fight for me, but why should I assume that if she won't name the opposition? El-Sayed is is more narrowly focused on healthcare and his support for Medicare for All, but he specifically attacks insurers and drug companies. Would he be a good general-purpose senator? It's hard to say but I'm pretty sure he'd be effective on the things he shows he cares about. McMorrow might be more of a legislator at heart, a good choice in a lot of ways, but she also looks risk-averse, which is not what we need right now.
IN a nutshell, the Democrats should have listened to one of their leading men, Bernie Sanders, in 2015 and in 2020, Instead, they pushed Hillary and then Joe Biden (whose dementia must have been in full view to anyone who knew him up close). Two catastrophic errors that may prove fatal for the dems, not only in the coming election cycle, but more importantly, in the next.
Bernie Sanders would have lost in a bigger rout in 2016 or 2020 than Harris losing in 2024.
In my view he had a fighting chance but we can differ of opinion on that - the point is that Bernie came across as standing on principle - the Hillary crowd are just a bunch of ruthless opportunists
This complaint never gets old for some people. Sanders is not a leading Democrat; he isn't even a Democrat. His stock in trade is castigating the Democratic Party. All his smearing of Hillary Clinton in 2016 did was help put that asshole in the White House the first time.
A good read. I would only add that if the leaders of the Dem party once again ignore the facts highlighted, we should believe them once and for all that they place a higher value on protecting the interests of neoliberal elites and wealthy donors, than on winning elections. It’s a choice they keep making over and over again.
How about consulting the grassroots activists who are fighting on the frontlines? We are not part of the consultancy class. Every person interviewed, with all due respect, was paid for their opinions over the past few elections. The Political Industrial Complex has too much sway in our conversations. Once I would like to see others like the leaders of Indivisible or Swing Left or Markers for Democracy quoted in these articles. Who knows, maybe you'll learn something new and helpful.
While perhaps true, at least in the case of Anat Shanker-Osorio, they did not listen to them.
Listen or not, there are other voices that should be part of the discussion. Particularly those who don't earn their living by furnishing those opinions. When you are part of an ecosystem, your agenda is just different.
I think it’s a fair point, but following Anat’s work it is clear they are not taking her advice, if they are listening at all, and her advice is very much rooted in the grass roots operations of which you speak. Further, grass roots opinion is very important, foundational even. You still have to take that foundation and translate it into a campaign and a communications strategy and you do need expertise for that.
I have no issue with Anat, my issue is that the grassroots are not part of the discussion in their own words expressing their own thought processes. Allowing those opinions to flow into the discussion can only help. Not only in communicating with the party, but with journalists as well.
Given the fact that Trump has run the economy into the ground, even ivory tower neoliberals should understand that Democrats have got to address the personal misery among real people in the country. If they still counsel "moderation" in the face of no meaningful way for people to pay for healthcare, rent and groceries, then they might as well be Republicans.
I remember the minimum wage increase didn't pass in California, people like you live in a parallel universe, and yes, a normal Republican candidate would have easily won instead of Trump, Trump is the only reason Harris had a chance.
People don't really want to burn everything down.
"Voters intuitively understand that concentration of economic power and massive hoards of wealth threaten our democracy and undermine our liberty."
Whatever it is that they may intuitively understand, they repeatedly vote for the party that is devoted to concentrating economic power.
A big reason why the Democrat Party failed in 2016 and 2024 is because they became a popular front: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_front, basically a coalition of liberals, socdems, leftists, and even some neocons built to fight "fascism", as defined by a singled-out party that is usually right-wing populist. This strategy tends to fail, as they lack cohesion particularly as the liberals defect to the designated "fascists"- dissent between liberals and leftists is why the German Revolution of 1848 failed entrenching absolute monarchy in central Europe, why Leon Blum's French coalition failed to organize a cohesive defense against Nazi Germany from 1936-1938, and why AfD is gaining rapidly in popularity in Germany today with the cordon sanitaire by the traffic-light popular front increasingly collapsing.
Frankly I could not have picked a worse strategy to undermine the credibility of a party that represents the establishment liberals everyone is running away from, then to form such a broad coalition with no clear mandate and easy factions for the other side to pick away.
Good article, and thanks.
The points about democracy and the economy, and about culture war attacks are important, but I'm not sure I agree with your take on them.
On democracy and the economy, I agree that politicians like to separate them, and that's a mistake. As you say, they're the same thing, running in *both* directions. If you want the public to control their government, you have to keep the wealthy in check. *And* if you want to control oligarchy, then the public has to take its responsibilities seriously and officials have to protect the ability of the people to be heard and heeded. Democracy isn't a secondary issue. It goes hand in hand with prosperity at the top of the list.
On the culture wars, this is really important to get clear.
First, most of what Republicans call the obsessive focus of Democrats on cultural issues consists of Democrats trying to stand up against relentless attacks on minorities by Republicans. It's Republicans grabbing your wrist and saying "stop hitting yourself". What should Democrats do? Should they abandon the people being attacked. Hell no. They should continue to stand up and call out what's going on. They should defend harder.
Second, Republicans understand something that leading Democrats refuse to learn. That man does *not* live by bread alone. They understand that people care down to their souls about other things, most importantly, they care about whether they belong to the group. Republicans say, "YES you belong, and they way you know that is because THEY DON'T - and we'll back up that exclusion with guns and prisons and laws and media that tells you every day why they shouldn't belong and you should."
The answer to an attack based on belonging isn't to pivot to the economy and ignore the attack. That misses the point. Ignoring that people care deeply about belonging doesn't make it go away. The answer is to marry the attack and the economy together. "They want to make you hate other people who never hurt you so that they can steal from you. If we all stick together, we can all prosper. If you throw your neighbor under the bus, the jackals are coming for you next."
Democrats are so afraid to make the case for the "other": for minorities, for immigrants. They're so afraid of being put on the wrong side of "in group/out group" fights. Republicans know it and they use that fear every day like a club, beating Democrats with it. Democrats need to learn: they can't win, and they can't have a vision worth fighting for, if they don't let go of this fear and defend people who need defending. Make it about Us, not Us vs. Them.
When we mock the Democrats love of Kitchen Table Issues, this is what we're mocking. Democratic leaders think that message discipline on the economy is a strength when it's clear that it's really a cover for fear of standing up for *all* of us.
Thanks for this article. There's a lot to like in it, especially the points about avoiding centrism, picking fights, and naming enemies.
I live in Michigan and it's an interesting race for an open Senate seat. Haley Stevens is a party-chosen moderate, so she's out for me. But the other two, Mallory McMorrow and Abdul El-Sayed are more interesting. But there's the thing: McMorrow stakes her reputation on being a fighter but she won't say who and what she's fighting. She might actually fight for me, but why should I assume that if she won't name the opposition? El-Sayed is is more narrowly focused on healthcare and his support for Medicare for All, but he specifically attacks insurers and drug companies. Would he be a good general-purpose senator? It's hard to say but I'm pretty sure he'd be effective on the things he shows he cares about. McMorrow might be more of a legislator at heart, a good choice in a lot of ways, but she also looks risk-averse, which is not what we need right now.
So yeah, interesting times in Michigan.
The only good thing about a Republican is that they aren't a Democrat.
REPUBLICANS ARE RED,
DEMOCRATS ARE BLUE,
NEITHER ONE OF THEM
GIVES A SHIT ABOUT YOU.
Sounds pretty darn smart. I'm taking it seriously.