Full article: A Three Point Plan To Fix the Democrats and Their Coalition (substack.com) Basically, return to Clinton-era centrism is how I read this. I think he's probably right that this would be a more effective political strategy, even if centrist solutions may seem to offer inadequate solutions to the problems that the disadvantaged face and exacerbate existing inequalities. At some point, the "principled" thing to do is actually come up with politics that represent what the people want, even if you disagree with some of it. I think young people tried to move the Democratic party leftward too fast for the median voter, and Republicans have capitalized on this. What do others think? Agree or disagree? 1. Democrats Must Move to the Center on Cultural Issues ... The sad fact is that the cultural left in and around the Democratic party has managed to associate the party with a series of views on crime, immigration, policing, free speech and of course race and gender that are quite far from those of the median voter. These unpopular views are further amplified by Democratic-leaning media and nonprofits, as well as within the Democratic party infrastructure itself, all of which are thoroughly dominated by the cultural left. In an era when a party’s national brand increasingly defines state and even local electoral contests, Democratic candidates have a very hard time shaking these cultural left associations. ... There’s a signal there if Democrats care to receive it. Perhaps their embrace of “a purer version of liberalism…especially on social issues” has not been a particularly good idea. If they ever hope to overcome their structural obstacles to electoral and governance success, there really is no choice but to move to the center on cultural issues. It’s a prerequisite for everything else they want to accomplish. 2. Democrats Must Promote an Abundance Agenda ... The truth of the matter is that Democrats’ theory of the case on the economy leans heavily on the idea that a dramatic expansion of the social safety net and a rapid move to a clean energy economy will—eventually--result in strong growth, a burgeoning supply of good jobs and a rising standard of living for all. So far the results have not been impressive. This theory reflects the priorities of Democratic elites who are primarily interested in redistribution and action on climate change. But voters, especially working class voters, are interested in abundance: more stuff, more growth, more opportunity, cheaper prices, nicer, more comfortable lives. Thus to reach and hold these voters, the Democrats need an abundance agenda. Right now, they don’t have one. Sure, they have a climate agenda. But the two things are not the same. ... That’s why it’s inadequate for Democrats to focus narrowly on a clean energy, Green New Deal-type future. Not only is there an excessive focus on wind and solar, but the challenges for an abundant future cannot be reduced to the need for a clean energy transition. And make no mistake: what Americans want is an abundant future not just a green one that, they are told, is mostly necessary to stave off planetary disaster. In short, what Americans want and need is an abundant economy, of which a clean energy economy (and even more, renewables) are merely subsets or components. That can be a winning vision of where Democrats want to take the economy in ways a Green New Deal simply can’t. As British science journalist Leigh Phillips has observed: Once upon a time, the Left . . . promised more innovation, faster progress, greater abundance. One of the reasons . . . that the historically fringe ideology of libertarianism is today so surprisingly popular in Silicon Valley and with tech-savvy young people more broadly . . . is that libertarianism is the only extant ideology that so substantially promises a significantly materially better future. That should be the Democrats’ mantra: more innovation, faster progress, greater abundance. Without that, simply being fairer and greener will fail as a unifying economic offer. 3. Democrats Must Embrace Patriotism and Liberal Nationalism ... In short, embrace patriotism and don’t apologize for it. That’s the creed of ordinary Americans even if many activist Democrats reject it. Illustrating this, a survey project by the More in Common group was able to separate out a group they termed "progressive activists" who were 8 percent of the population (but punch far above their weight in the Democratic party) and are described as "deeply concerned with issues concerning equity, fairness, and America's direction today. They tend to be more secular, cosmopolitan, and highly engaged with social media". These progressive activists' attitude toward their own country departs greatly from not just that of average Americans but from pretty much any other group you might care to name, including average nonwhite Americans. Black, Hispanic and Asian Americans, in fact, are highly likely to be proud to be Americans and highly likely to say they would still choose to live in America if they could choose to live anywhere in the world. In contrast, progressive activists are loathe to express these sentiments. For example, just 34 percent of progressive activists say they are “proud to be American” compared to 62 percent of Asians, 70 percent of blacks, and 76 percent of Hispanics ... If liberal nationalism was good enough for A Philip Randolph and Bayard Rustin, for FDR and JFK, it should be good enough for today’s Democratic party. Democrats should proudly proclaim that their party is a patriotic party that believes Americans as a nation can accomplish great things, just as it has in the past and as it will in the future. Given all that Democrats hope to accomplish and all the voters they hope to reach, to do otherwise makes no sense. Indeed, it borders on political malpractice. So those are the three parts of the plan. To review: 1. Democrats Must Move to the Center on Cultural Issues 2. Democrats Must Promote an Abundance Agenda 3. Democrats Must Embrace Patriotism and Liberal Nationalism A Democratic party that adopts these principles has a real shot at political domination given Republicans’ serious problems and weaknesses. Conversely, a Democratic party that continues on its present course dooms American politics to continued stalemate and polarization. That’s something this country cannot afford given the nature of the challenges we face.
What’s a centrist position on lgbtq rights that isn’t fundamentally discriminatory? You either support full rights for every human or you don’t. There’s no real centrist position for the party to stand. You can say something like “Im a Christian so it’s not for me, but I cant stand in the way of your rights” I guess but in the end it’s just saying it while supporting the same policy positions and giving Republicans a talking point against you.
Probably best to ask a member of that community who has politically moderate views on the subject. You really think it’s a “you’re either with us or against us” thing? I think a willingness to engage in constructive dialogue on the issue with people you disagree with and seek out common ground is part of it. Part of the “centrist position” would be a rejection of the view that this shouldn’t happen.
"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
When it comes to their rights yeah.. it is kind of black and white like that. However on specific issues like say tax policy, or immigration... sure... that demographic should be treated with respect as if there's a conversation to be had with diverse opinions of course. But I don't see that as being the central thing this article is trying to say. They aren't saying you shouldn't be woke, and should be moderate on tax policy. Either way, this article was written as a hedge bet assuming the Democrats would get shellacked. The night showed that what the Demcrats were talking about... while maybe not perfect (hello Florida and most of Texas), it otherwise message and positioning wise held up very well with independent voters.... aka moderate voters like this article is suggesting Democrats have this HUGE problem with, and media figures like Bill Maher suggest Democrats are terrible at with "wokeness." I think that's mostly a media misconception.
Im just not sure how you put that cultural toothpaste back into tube. Democrats aren’t as unified from grassroots to media as the GOP so how are they going to reign in the progressives? Progressives will need to be convinced to dial it down on the cultural issues. Seems like this is more of an anti progressive thread, which I don’t necessarily agree with entirely but does have some points. I feel like the Biden administration has kept most of the economic nationalism from the Trump admin. I think the oil and gas industry is playing a bit of possum after emerging from one of their worst bankruptcies since the 80s, but think Biden can tone down some of the rhetoric and loosen some legislation.
Democrats aren't in a great position. But the swing and independent voters aren't buying what the GOP candidates are selling. The problem for Republicans is that the GOP candidates who will sell what the swing and independent voters would buy, can't get out of the primaries. What Republicans need is turnout to get rid of the die-hard Trumpers. But their elected politicians won't take a stand against them. It will take a unified stand of anti-Trump Republicans to help them. Democrats are spread pretty thin across the spectrum as far as moderates and leftists. So they will often damage their own party.
Imagine the triggering effect of a leftist wrote an article about how the moderates are failing the party and someone posted it here. "BuT jOe ScArBorOgH sAiD dEfUnD tHe pOliCe iS bAd!"
I don't think most centrists want to take away rights, but then there is also probably disagreement over what counts as a right. If someone refers to a person as a woman when they identify as a man, is that taking away their rights? Some might argue yes, but many won't. On the question of how people should be "held accountable" for misgendering others, do you think there are fundamentally only two positions? And what about the intersection of LGBTQ rights and parental rights for non-adult children?
My god dude. We going on about pronouns now? The right really has done an amazing campaign. Academics, Tumblr blogs etc ,make sure not to use any eccentric language on your speech about some new ideas because some right wing grifters is going to spam it across the internet and make it into some oppression Olympics that we are forcing people to do pronouns.
I swear it must be a tag team between establishment Democrats and Republicans to make "they are forcing pronouns on us" a thing to distract from the fact that the moderate Democrat for the past 4 years hasn't touched subjects like public healthcare. They would rather have leftists fight over defending themselves that they aren't extremists than them winning the economic narrative game because if they win that game that means things like the establishment Democrats not having as many avenues to grift(insider trading having significantly harsher restrictions for example) and that quite frankly is the biggest fear establishment Democrats have about the left. They fear they will **** up their status quo opportunities to grift.
So you don't think misgendering someone is taking away their rights, and people who think otherwise in left wing circles are in an extreme minority?
Sure there is. It's not compromising on values, but compromising on tone. Recognizing that transgender is something that's complicated for people and that people are still evolving on the issue and aren't horrible evil people for being conflicted or lacking understanding. Understanding that transgender sports are a complicated biological issue. Etc.
I think people on the left think it's a common curiosity and all this mess about "forcing" comes from out of context memes and Jordan Peterson nisrepresting a Canadian law which as of today prosecuted zero people for "misgendering" I hate ****ing social media.
Lol there is a difference between disagreement and people pushing back on active legislation in the works that harm transgender people. "Four kids and only one of them playing girls sports. That’s what all of this is about. Four kids who aren’t dominating or winning trophies or taking scholarships. Four kids who are just trying to find some friends and feel like they are a part of something. Four kids trying to get through each day. Rarely has so much fear and anger been directed at so few." Woke activist Republican governor of Utah Spencer Cox. The GOP has weaponized these issues and it has worked gloriously. Pat yourself on the back because the the GOP frambered you.
Sure - and that's why you continue pushing to pass laws but you change your tone. You win over the middle by not making them feel like horrible people for having questions, thus them not opposing you as much. It's basic politics 101 to win on issues where you don't have solid majority support.
Who actually created the tone? Did you hear much about transgender rights before the right decides they needed some talking points because they really don't have policy positions so suddenly you saw an influx of "CRT" and "trans women in female sports" rhetoric? You think that naturally arose due to some sincere perception of people seeing these things on the rise? Or do you think the right is very keen on social engineering talking points into the masses using platforms like "libsoftictok"? Here is a test. What group of people did you hear the term "CRT" from first? A leftist or a right winger? The answer right there will tell you everything you need to know about who planted these thoughts in your head. You are literally falling into a right wing trap.
You read wrong. There is a difference between being overzealous about your views on transgender people and fighting back against current bills in the pipeline that target transgender people and the services they want. There is an active push to harm trans people and you want people who don't think trans people are evil to not push back. That ain't happening buddy.
Part of me thinks many posters here would rather have the left actually concentrate on these issues. You want the left to be overzealous about the evils of property rights and capitalism now? Because they are really good at that.
