POLITICO: Democrats Must Reclaim the Center … by Moving Hard Left

Deleted member 22490 · Aug 15, 2018

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...reclaim-the-center-by-moving-hard-left-219354

Every time Democrats lose a presidential election, blue America promptly collapses into civil war—and never more so than in the aftermath of 2016. Progressive Democrats, buoyed by a number of high-profile victories, insist that if the party is to have any hope of fending off Trumpism, it must decisively move to the political left by embracing the populist messaging and agenda of insurgent outsiders like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Establishment Democrats (egged on by eye-rolling pundits and concern-trolling never-Trumpers) dismiss that idea as electoral suicide, contending that now more than ever is the time for the party to reclaim the political center by championing an agenda that pragmatically appeals to voters on both sides of the aisle.

And you know what? They're absolutely right. All of them. The Democratic Party must reclaim the political center. And the only way to do that is by boldly moving toward the so-called "radical" left.

If this strikes you as counterintuitive, you're not alone. By respectively attempting to purge the center or marginalize the left, progressive and establishment Democrats alike have displayed a willful ignorance of where and what the center actually is. This is not mere wordplay. Over the past several decades, Democrats have allowed a mistaken and self-destructive definition of centrism to become party orthodoxy. It continues to undermine party unity at a time when a unified Democratic Party is more essential than ever.

In fact, there are two kinds of political centers: There's the ideological center—the one that Democrats are waging a civil war over. And there's the majoritarian center—the one where most of the people are. If Democrats hope to be a majority party, it's the majoritarian center they need to embrace. And to understand the difference between these two strains of centrism, it's important to understand exactly what the center is measuring.

There's more. It's a good read.

PolishQ · Aug 15, 2018

Yeah, common thinking says that if you were to map out voters on a right-to-left political spectrum, it would form a bell curve with the majority of voters in the middle.

In reality, it's more like two bell curves next to each other, with a valley in the middle. The "humps" are somewhere around "firmly right-leaning" and "firmly left-leaning".

So if your party is just right or just left of center (like the GOP and Democrats of 10 years ago), you actually want to go FURTHER right or left to secure more votes, instead of moving towards the center as common thinking might dictate. The GOP successfully did this, by going full extreme right wing. Democrats are just starting to (hopefully) figure this out.

Deleted member 22490 · Aug 15, 2018

PolishQ said:
. The GOP successfully did this, by going full extreme right wing. Democrats are just starting to (hopefully) figure this out.

I think we're beginning to see this

'3y Kingdom · Aug 15, 2018

In fact, there are two kinds of political centers: There's the ideological center—the one that Democrats are waging a civil war over. And there's the majoritarian center—the one where most of the people are. If Democrats hope to be a majority party, it's the majoritarian center they need to embrace. And to understand the difference between these two strains of centrism, it's important to understand exactly what the center is measuring.

This sounds nice until you realize that a majority of Americans would probably vote to preserve forms of white privilege over actually reducing inequality.

The rest of the article has some good points, though. It's true that many supposedly "far left" policies actually align with the preferences of the mainstream.

opus · Aug 15, 2018

Good article, although articles like these never seem to address exactly how you sell this...

And what would a truly centrist Democratic agenda look like? A $15 minimum wage, a restored overtime threshold, affordable public college, Medicare for All, paid family leave, crucial infrastructure investments, modern labor laws, and substantially higher taxes on wealthy corporations and individuals would be a good start.

...to two generations of voters who've bought into twenty years of Fox News, and believe that all of that will mean the literal end of America, even if it will benefit them the most.

'3y Kingdom said:
This sounds nice until you realize that a majority of Americans would probably vote to preserve forms of white privilege over actually reducing inequality.

Also this.

SaintBowWow · Aug 15, 2018

'3y Kingdom said:
This sounds nice until you realize that a majority of Americans would probably vote to preserve forms of white privilege over actually reducing inequality.

The rest of the article has some good points, though. It's true that many supposedly "far left" policies actually align with the preferences of the mainstream.

Most Americans who vote would. The idea is to get people to the polls who would vote differently, and moving further left could energize those people in a way a centrist candidate wouldn't.

thefit · Aug 15, 2018

'3y Kingdom said:
This sounds nice until you realize that a majority of Americans would probably vote to preserve forms of white privilege over actually reducing inequality.

The rest of the article has some good points, though. It's true that many supposedly "far left" policies actually align with the preferences of the mainstream.

Center (short attention span idiots) voters are very reactive to loud noise and flashing lights like moths. You get one chance to swing them to your side and you don't come out with a bigger bullhorn than the other side you aren't gonna win. It's depressing as fuck that is is what democracy in America has become but you gotta do what you gotta do. Pendulum is swinging and you have to make sure it swings back hard to your side.

Deleted member 22490 · Aug 15, 2018

'3y Kingdom said:
This sounds nice until you realize that a majority of Americans would probably vote to preserve forms of white privilege over actually reducing inequality.

True, however, I think it would be possible to form an intersectional message to convince those racists. But, ideally, this would draw in the ones who didn't vote because they didn't like either candidate last go around.

PhoenixDark · Aug 15, 2018

'3y Kingdom said:
This sounds nice until you realize that a majority of Americans would probably vote to preserve forms of white privilege over actually reducing inequality.

The rest of the article has some good points, though. It's true that many supposedly "far left" policies actually align with the preferences of the mainstream.

...yet in the real world, the basic policy ideas presented will not only help a significant amount of white people (moreso than minorities in fact), they're popular among white people. Most people vote based off economic gain.

The policy isn't the problem; most people support those things and and have for quite some time. The problem will be passing them in the senate, where republicans will filibuster all of those policies. Will democrats be willing to shitcan the filibuster for those policies? I'm not sure. Hell, I'm not sure I would. Think about how minimal and bare Trump's legislative victories are...thanks to the filibuster. Do you risk losing all these things the next time the business cycle turns/we have a recession and republicans get swept into office? Then there's the tax bill, and the hurdles it creates for any progressive policy. Is the whole thing going to be repealed (no) or will democrats focus on the higher end tax bracket and corporate fuckery.

Some of the policies are more feasible than others; a $15 minimum wage will never be passed nationally IMO, nor should it. And while I can agree with the general arguments made in the article, I also think democrats are walking into another trap, similar to 2009. It's not their fault...but the point is this economy is going to have a recession soon and it looks like it's going to coincide with when democrats start winning things again.

Chadtwo · Aug 15, 2018

This shit can't be said enough. Agree wholeheartedly with the bulk of the article.

Phrozenflame500 · Aug 15, 2018

In fact, there are two kinds of political centers: There's the ideological center—the one that Democrats are waging a civil war over. And there's the majoritarian center—the one where most of the people are. If Democrats hope to be a majority party, it's the majoritarian center they need to embrace.

The word you're looking for is "populism"

Occam · Aug 15, 2018

The Democrats have been driven so far to the right that it makes conservative European parties look like left-wing.

Plinko · Aug 15, 2018

I can see how this could work well and also how this could spectacularly backfire if they went too far left.

Getting behind Medicare for All, better college loan forgiveness programs, and corporate governance would be the right moves to make now. There has never been a better chance for a national health care program to be established in our country than right now.

bionic77 · Aug 15, 2018

Americans have to also stop being dumb assholes too.

It's not just on the political parties.

KtotheRoc · Aug 15, 2018

Democrats should and will move to the left in response to Trump and the GOP. The Left is so angry about what Trump and the Right is doing, just as the Right was angry about everything Obama did.

(The Left REALLY hates Trump. So much.)

bevishead · Aug 15, 2018

It is popular among liberals to take the intelligence road and use calm logic rather than emotional shouting points. Right now the emotional shouting points is getting all the attention. I'm not sure how fired up the large majority of liberals are willing to get.

GrooveCommand · Aug 15, 2018

PolishQ said:
Yeah, common thinking says that if you were to map out voters on a right-to-left political spectrum, it would form a bell curve with the majority of voters in the middle.

In reality, it's more like two bell curves next to each other, with a valley in the middle. The "humps" are somewhere around "firmly right-leaning" and "firmly left-leaning".

So if your party is just right or just left of center (like the GOP and Democrats of 10 years ago), you actually want to go FURTHER right or left to secure more votes, instead of moving towards the center as common thinking might dictate. The GOP successfully did this, by going full extreme right wing. Democrats are just starting to (hopefully) figure this out.

Maybe this is why Trump won? By embracing the radical right that was able to give him enough votes? And because Hillary was a centrist milquetoast she didn't get enough support within her own party?

opus · Aug 15, 2018

As for progressive Democrats, it's time for us to stop trashing the very notion of centrism itself. The "centrist" wing of our party (and to be clear, it's a wing, not the center) isn't uniformly evil or corrupt. They're not bad people. They're just wrong. They believed what economists told them, and then tried to govern accordingly. But they're still Democrats, and as such, we all broadly share the same inclusive values and goals. Moreover, by relentlessly reviling the center, progressives needlessly cede it. Which is stupid. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is already the largest Democratic caucus in Congress. So you know what that makes them? The center!

This is a missing piece of the puzzle, too. The vitriol I've seen thrown at people around here who question, even slightly, the position of democratic socialists/social democrats/whatever (and vice versa, to be clear) has gotten incredibly toxic.

We're all on the same side here.

SmarmySmurf · Aug 15, 2018

Dems definitely need to stop being spineless little bitches. And fuck centrism.

guek · Aug 15, 2018

'3y Kingdom said:
This sounds nice until you realize that a majority of Americans would probably vote to preserve forms of white privilege over actually reducing inequality.

That's why you don't frame it as reducing minority inequality, you frame it as reducing the wealth gap felt by the majority. Reducing minority inequality must also be part of the platform but that's not what you have to expressly advertise to those that benefit from white privilege.

Deleted member 2317 · Aug 15, 2018

Doesn't seem that way on the national stage at all though, sounds more like wishful thinking.

Pata Hikari · Aug 15, 2018

afternoon delight said:
Doesn't seem that way on the national stage at all though, sounds more like wishful thinking.

Politicians constantly think their constituents are more conservative than they are and Conservative politicians get less votes.

Airing of Grievances · Aug 15, 2018

opus said:
This is a missing piece of the puzzle, too. The vitriol I've seen thrown at people around here who question, even slightly, the position of democratic socialists/social democrats/whatever (and vice versa, to be clear) has gotten incredibly toxic.

We're all on the same side here.

That's some pretty bold chutzpah that's being spewed in that quote. Ocasio-Cortez can't discuss policy for five minutes without beclowning herself but it's the economists that are wrong? Such hubris.

onadesertedisland · Aug 15, 2018

So much about what the Democrats must do involves introspection. What they need to do is energize marginal Democratic voters to get to the polls. This involves creating a message. Since the Democratic party is happy to be this amorphous ball of ambiguity it's hard to say to the non voter, hey you should vote because it will change your life. We have republican pandering in red areas regurgitated as infallible dogma because of reasons, and then we get told to temper our expectations or else the republicans will run attack ads. A whole lotta shit begins with we need to be "realistic", and that kinda message makes marginal voters say fuck it, I'm gonna go drink.

supra · Aug 15, 2018

Losing 900 seats since 2010 should've been their wake up call. Yet the establishment in the DNC still thinks they're owed the benefit of the doubt on what they consider "electability?"

Running as anti Trump isn't enough. Running for "access" to "affordable" health care isn't enough. Run on things that can actually improve people's fucking lives.

Doctor_Thomas · Aug 15, 2018

Runnning as "well, at least I'm not Trump" doesn't work.

America, in general, still has the issue that anything left of centre is seen as radical because, honestly, the US has never really experienced true left wing politics because holding the centres worked. All Trump and his cronies did was move the right and, as a result, move the centre along with it. It's why being a centrist is bullshit and irrelevent when your choices as "former centre now being viewed as left" and "far right". Where does a centrist now fall? Right of centre?

NoRéN · Aug 15, 2018

PolishQ said:
Yeah, common thinking says that if you were to map out voters on a right-to-left political spectrum, it would form a bell curve with the majority of voters in the middle.

In reality, it's more like two bell curves next to each other, with a valley in the middle. The "humps" are somewhere around "firmly right-leaning" and "firmly left-leaning".

So if your party is just right or just left of center (like the GOP and Democrats of 10 years ago), you actually want to go FURTHER right or left to secure more votes, instead of moving towards the center as common thinking might dictate. The GOP successfully did this, by going full extreme right wing. Democrats are just starting to (hopefully) figure this out.

Excellent post. let's hope it does work out like this.

onadesertedisland · Aug 15, 2018

We should also stop trying to win over pieces of shit. Fuck them, let them waddle in the pools of feces they created. We owe nothing to them, nor would any rope to help them be met with anything other than them trying to pull us in.

MasterSummerSmith462 · Aug 15, 2018

Well yes, yes they do.

They need to move as far left at least to Bernie Sanders level.

Of course this means going for actual reforms, especially economic reforms. This means Democrats have to stop being corporate stooges. It means campaigning to align and fix class issues.

Social identity pandering doesn't get much done.

Conciliator · Aug 15, 2018

we got to stop letting the right tell us and others that policies like UHC, raising minimum wage, fixing gerrymandering, and taking climate change seriously are radical policies. They're not.

gutter_trash · Aug 15, 2018

the Right Wing Goal Post has been moved so Far Extreme to the Right that nudging back the Left Post further Left than Americanly normal would be an overall re-centering

SageShinigami · Aug 15, 2018

PhoenixDark said:
...yet in the real world, the basic policy ideas presented will not only help a significant amount of white people (moreso than minorities in fact), they're popular among white people. Most people vote based off economic gain.

The policy isn't the problem; most people support those things and and have for quite some time. The problem will be passing them in the senate, where republicans will filibuster all of those policies. Will democrats be willing to shitcan the filibuster for those policies? I'm not sure. Hell, I'm not sure I would. Think about how minimal and bare Trump's legislative victories are...thanks to the filibuster. Do you risk losing all these things the next time the business cycle turns/we have a recession and republicans get swept into office? Then there's the tax bill, and the hurdles it creates for any progressive policy. Is the whole thing going to be repealed (no) or will democrats focus on the higher end tax bracket and corporate fuckery.

Some of the policies are more feasible than others; a $15 minimum wage will never be passed nationally IMO, nor should it. And while I can agree with the general arguments made in the article, I also think democrats are walking into another trap, similar to 2009. It's not their fault...but the point is this economy is going to have a recession soon and it looks like it's going to coincide with when democrats start winning things again.

Out of curiosity...why not?

Kirblar · Aug 15, 2018

This article is absolutely terrible because it utterly ignores that politics is not uni-dimensionsal and you can immediately guess (and be right) about the background of the person who wrote the piece..

In fact, there are two kinds of political centers: There's the ideological center—the one that Democrats are waging a civil war over. And there's the majoritarian center—the one where most of the people are. If Democrats hope to be a majority party, it's the majoritarian center they need to embrace. And to understand the difference between these two strains of centrism, it's important to understand exactly what the center is measuring.

Imagine lining up every person in America on a yardstick, with the poorest person standing to the far-left edge of the stick (zero inches) and the wealthiest person standing to the far right (36 inches)

If you go with a majoritarian approach to US politics (hi voter study group) what you inevitable end up with is an apartheid state because the white majority will vote for benefits for themselves while denying it to others.

Not once does the author mention "race" (outside of using it to refer to running for office) and any analysis of United States politics that ignores that is completely worthless.

They believed what economists told them

Anti-intellectualism ain't cute either.

SageShinigami said:
Out of curiosity...why not?

Low cost of living areas get decimated by it. It's a national floor that needs to account for that. You still should raise it but it shouldn't be going anywhere near that high on a national level. Unions back the lobbying/ad groups pushing the "Fight for $15" min wage stuff, but they deliberately target metropolitan areas, they don't push it nationwide. People just took it and ran with it anyway though.

Ryuuroden · Aug 15, 2018

Well that's why instead of a national minimum wage there should be a varying regional cost of living minimum wage and by regional I mean almost county by county, city suburban and rural. I know states and cities can do it but I don't know how you can federally mandate it to force all areas to adopt a local cost of living minimum.

loquaciousJenny · Aug 15, 2018

Where the nerds from last week who were talking about politico "tripping over themselves" to attack the far left or "has an interest in discrediting left wing politics"

Kirblar · Aug 15, 2018

Ryuuroden said:
Well that's why instead of a national minimum wage there should be a varying regional cost of living minimum wage and by regional I mean almost county by county, city suburban and rural. I know states and cities can do it but I don't know how you can federally mandate it to force all areas to adopt a local cost of living minimum.

That already exists. States/Counties/Cities all set individual ones higher than the national one, and even when they don't it's often effectively higher in higher cost of living areas.

loquaciousJenny said:
Where the nerds from last week who were talking about politico "tripping over themselves" to attack the far left or "has an interest in discrediting left wing politics"

It's still Politico, so it's the most white majoritarian take on it possible.

Luminish · Aug 15, 2018

Kirblar said:
This article is absolutely terrible because it utterly ignores that politics is not uni-dimensionsal and you can immediately guess (and be right) about the background of the person who wrote the piece..

If you go with a majoritarian approach to US politics (hi voter study group) what you inevitable end up with is an apartheid state because the white majority will vote for benefits for themselves while denying it to others.

Not once does the author mention "race" (outside of using it to refer to running for office) and any analysis of United States politics that ignores that is completely worthless.

Anti-intellectualism ain't cute either.

Low cost of living areas get decimated by it. It's a national floor that needs to account for that. You still should raise it but it shouldn't be going anywhere near that high on a national level. Unions back the lobbying/ad groups pushing the "Fight for $15" min wage stuff, but they deliberately target metropolitan areas, they don't push it nationwide. People just took it and ran with it anyway though.

Are you serious with this bullshit? I've never seen the already stupid idea that progressivism is fundamentally racist taken so far.

Race relations has progressed since the new deal of the 1940s, and no matter what they do, the democratic party is too reliant on colored folks to ever come close to apartheid state you somehow think this path leads to. Maybe some progressives have blind spots and will not pay as much attention to other important issues related to race, but seriously "apartheid state"? What the fuck are you talking about?

Suiko · Aug 15, 2018

thepotatoman said:
Are you serious with this bullshit? I've never seen the already stupid idea that progressivism is fundamentally racist taken so far.

Race relations has progressed since the new deal of the 1940s, and no matter what they do, the democratic party is too reliant on colored folks to ever come close to apartheid state you somehow think this path leads to. Maybe some progressives have blind spots and will not pay as much attention to other important issues related to race, but seriously "apartheid state"? What the fuck are you talking about?

Have you seen what significant immigration has resulted in with countries like Denmark?
Literal state indoctrination to receive benefits.

You won't see massive changes to policy if minorities are going to benefit. Democrats don't have the votes.
Maybe they do on a popular vote paradigm, but not in a system that values land as a voter.

Punished Goku · Aug 15, 2018

opus said:
This is a missing piece of the puzzle, too. The vitriol I've seen thrown at people around here who question, even slightly, the position of democratic socialists/social democrats/whatever (and vice versa, to be clear) has gotten incredibly toxic.

We're all on the same side here.

Fam, us Dems will always be in disarray.

Kirblar · Aug 15, 2018

thepotatoman said:
Are you serious with this bullshit? I've never seen the already stupid idea that progressivism is fundamentally racist taken so far.

Race relations has progressed since the new deal of the 1940s, and no matter what they do, the democratic party is too reliant on colored folks to ever come close to apartheid state you somehow think this path leads to. Maybe some progressives have blind spots and will not pay as much attention to other important issues related to race, but seriously "apartheid state"? What the fuck are you talking about?

It's not bullshit, it's how people actually act and vote. The author describes a one-axis Left/Right description. He's correct about most people being on the left side economically. But he doesn't understand why they don't vote for Democrats.

This is what the political spectrum actually looks like:

You see that upper left quadrant? Those are the populists. Those are the people who are big on discrimination and also big on getting a lot of social benefits and really really big on getting benefits while denying them to other people.

I'm not saying that the current modern day Democratic party is going to go for an apartheid state, I'm saying that this hypothetical majoritarian coalition described by the author is going to end up being an apartheid state because it's what these swing voters desire. It's why the GOP has ran on social issues alone for decades now- they can't win on economics. It's why Trump succeeded by lying about his plans for health care and on other economic issues.

And I say that largely because the Democratic party of FDR and the new deal actively created a two tiered state. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...fts-diversity-problem/?utm_term=.1c0b672785a3 And these populist voters fled the party en masse starting with Nixon (who actively desired this kind of two-tiered apartheid state with strong social benefits... for white people) because of the Democrats backing Civil Rights in the '60s.

Nixon wanted to turn the GOP into a party resembling Le Pen-type coalitions in Europe. He failed, unfortunately it was the racism that stuck, not the economic reforms.

Suiko · Aug 15, 2018

Punished Goku said:
Fam, us Dems will always be in disarray.

Dis = ['D', 'E', 'M', 'S']

(shamelessly stolen from Poliera, i'm still disappointed I did not think of it)

Punished Goku · Aug 15, 2018

Suiko said:
Dis = ['D', 'E', 'M', 'S']

(shamelessly stolen from Poliera, i'm still disappointed I did not think of it)

I'm an idiot, because I'm having trouble understanding this.

Suiko · Aug 15, 2018

Punished Goku said:
I'm an idiot, because I'm having trouble understanding this post.

It's the letters D E M S is an array called DIS.
or DEMS in Dis Array.
Programmer humor.

Sanjuro · Aug 15, 2018

Yeah, I'm all set with this. Sounds like a way to lose more voters.

Punished Goku · Aug 15, 2018

Suiko said:
It's the letters D E M S is an array called DIS.
or DEMS in Dis Array.
Programmer humor.

Suiko · Aug 15, 2018

Sanjuro said:
Yeah, I'm all set with this. Sounds like a way to lose more voters.

Thus far the elections are not showing any significant shifts.
Just movement to the left in far left districts, which honestly is not the worst thing all things considered.
It's only a problem if those who are elected abandon reason like the far right did, and I don't see indications of that.

Sanjuro · Aug 15, 2018

Suiko said:
Thus far the elections are not showing any significant shifts.
Just movement to the left in far left districts, which honestly is not the worst thing all things considered.
It's only a problem if those who are elected abandon reason like the far right did, and I don't see indications of that.

Maybe. I'm in land of the far left, but in a region which is less progressive. Overall, I really have no idea how it will play out on a national scale, I just know the trickle effect down here is pretty scary.

Ponn · Aug 15, 2018

bevishead said:
It is popular among liberals to take the intelligence road and use calm logic rather than emotional shouting points. Right now the emotional shouting points is getting all the attention. I'm not sure how fired up the large majority of liberals are willing to get.

Surely staying on a centrists path maintaining the status quo that has made so many apathetic to politics will energize the base and non-voters?

Kirblar · Aug 15, 2018

Suiko said:
Thus far the elections are not showing any significant shifts.
Just movement to the left in far left districts, which honestly is not the worst thing all things considered.
It's only a problem if those who are elected abandon reason like the far right did, and I don't see indications of that.

It's assymetric polarization in action. The GOP Tea Party successfully primaried people in purple districts, the Dems are vetoing far-lefties in favor of pragmatists.

Shauni · Aug 15, 2018

MasterSummerSmith462 said:
Well yes, yes they do.

They need to move as far left at least to Bernie Sanders level.

Of course this means going for actual reforms, especially economic reforms. This means Democrats have to stop being corporate stooges. It means campaigning to align and fix class issues.

Social identity pandering doesn't get much done.

You cut minorities out of the platform you kill the Democratic Party and hand this country over to the GOP forever

POLITICO: Democrats Must Reclaim the Center … by Moving Hard Left

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

One Winged Slayer

User-requested account closure

User requested account closure