In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal Ruy Teixeira argues that the Harris campaign will dash to the center as part of their election strategy:
As the Republican Party embraced Donald Trump in 2016, the Democrats began to move to the left by associating their party with a series of views on crime, immigration, free speech, race and sex that are far from those of the median voter. These unpopular views are amplified by Democratic-leaning media. That’s why the Democrats have failed to establish themselves as a unifying party that can consistently beat the Trumpified GOP.
Now they have to defend the record of an unpopular administration. They can ill afford to be dragged down by radicalism on social issues. It would make sense to jettison most of this radicalism and adopt moderate, centrist positions. Will they?
Kamala Harris’s nascent campaign has been widely lauded for its strategic savvy. But it has been short on substance, leaning heavily on “vibes,” “memes” and pent-up partisan enthusiasm. Could there be a place in this emerging campaign for anything potentially controversial within the party, like a decisive turn away from cultural radicalism?
The balance of the op-ed provides examples of how that might be accomplished. Frankly, I doubt it.
The Harris campaign is in something of a pickle. They can’t run on her record, particularly if the economy continues to slow down. They can’t run on her principles and ideas because to the extent that she has any they appear to conflict with the views that the the “median voter” holds. They may not even be aligned with the views of the median Democratic voter. To date the campaign has been sufficiently content-free it’s hard to tell.
What I suspect they will do is suggest that the vice president holds views different from those she may actually hold (without actually saying so) and continue to run on “vibes” and identity (another form of “vibes”). If they can do with, castigating Trump all the way, for the next two months, they’ve got it made.
I’ve said before that Harris is the median of California democrats. Isn’t that the middle of the country?
I disagree. Both Harris and Walz are doctrinaire cultural Marxists. To them, the center would be socialism.
However, both Harris and Walz are fairly stupid people, and their campaign will be designed and run by their handlers. The handlers will likely choose to run their candidates as liberals. The problem will be to control the candidates so that they don’t go off topic and say what they actually think. Harris has come real close to saying anti-Zionist stuff at least once, and Walz is an admirer of the Chinese Communists.
Frankly, this is the first time I’ve thought about sitting out a presidential election since 1964. This campaign has a end times feel to it.
The political class in Russia is discussing whether or when a tactical nuclear demonstration would happen. Such joy!
Frankly, I doubt it. I would think they believe in private ownership with public control. That is a dictionary definition of fascism. “Cultural Marxists”? I’m not sure what that is. I think that the record suggests that Vice President Harris adopts whatever viewpoint will get her elected. In other words “if you don’t like those principles, I have others”. I think I would call that an opportunist rather than a cultural Marxist.
I doubt this, too. I suspect they are completely ordinary members of our professional class, i.e. IQs between 115 and 130. However, I agree that handlers will be running the campaign.
I expect that she will just float a bunch of ideas and then backtrack a bit if you dont play well. Probably end up center left in what they claim they will do.
Dave- In what blue state do Dems practice public control of all goods? Cant think of any offhand.
Steve
Why do you insist on changing the subject? There’s an easy answer: every state. They all have regulations. Most have business taxes. So does the federal government. You don’t think that taxes and regulations impose government control?
To stop being facetious it’s a matter of degree but the general trend has been towards increasing government control of the private sector for the last 90 years.
My point was simple and in response to Bob Sykes’s assertion that Harris and Walz were Marxists. I don’t think they’re Marxists. I think they’re what used to be called “Fabian socialists” in the UK—private ownership with substantial government control. That is definitionally fascism.
Dave Schuler: I would think they believe in private ownership with public control. That is a dictionary definition of fascism.
That’s a generally modern redefinition by the political right. Totalitarian regimes subjugate businesses, but they also subjugate labor unions, guilds, cooperatives, religions; all institutions which represent separate power centers. Fascism is totalitarian, but not all totalitarian regimes are fascist. Fascism entails a strictly hierarchical society. And fascism is ultranationalist, seeing conflict between nations (ethnicities) as not only natural, but giving meaning to the nation. Fascism is opposed to liberalism, pluralism, and democracy as empowering weak elements in society.
(Those who insist on the redefinition often point to corporatism, but corporatism doesn’t mean big business, but all the various interest groups, corporations, unions, guilds, agrarian collectives; which under fascism are subservient to the state.)
Dave Schuler: Most have business taxes. So does the federal government. You don’t think that taxes and regulations impose government control?
Having taxes and regulations doesn’t make a society Marxist or socialist or communist; otherwise George Washington was a communist. Taxes and regulations are integral to all government, regardless of type.
Dave Schuler: I think they’re what used to be called “Fabian socialists” in the UK—private ownership with substantial government control.
Most Democrats understand the importance of markets for economic growth. For this reason, there are very few Democrats who favor government control or ownership of most of the economy. However, they generally advocate for a strong social safety net, free public education, old age pension support, universal healthcare coverage, and a limit to the concentration of economic power (monopolies, which can actually be a threat to free markets). That represents a significant but minority share of the economy.
As usual you provide little in the way of evidence for your assertions. Start here:
I am a Democrat but I do not believe that is correct. I think that relatively few Democrats believe in the necessity of markets.
Dave- By that definition then all countries are fascist. If the definition you are using results in everyone being fascist it’s a useless definition.
I have never read any left of center, Democrat economist who doesnt think markets are a good idea. On the other side of the issue there is no place in the world with a functioning government where you dont have some taxes or regulations on businesses. At this point even most fo the anarchy-capitalists dont think it’s a good idea for businesses to just dump their waste in any public area. They, in general, think it should be solved by government just that their preferred branch of govt is the courts.
At any rate, I think we have ended up with 2 candidates making iffy statements. Harris said she was going to crack down on companies price gouging during emergencies. Trump said he will replace all of our taxes with tariffs and since other countries pay the tariffs Americans will pay a lot less.
Steve
Zachriel: Most Democrats understand the importance of markets for economic growth
You could look at the Democratic Party platform, which stresses the importance of markets, particularly global markets and new markets in technology. Or you could look at any number of initiatives by the Biden administration to strengthen small businesses and removing obstacles for entrepreneurs.
Dave Schuler: I am a Democrat but I do not believe that is correct.
Rather surprised by that. For evidence, we would point out that the most successful large economies have robust market sectors driving economic growth and technological innovation, transversing cultural and political differences from China to U.S. to Japan. They also have social safety nets, which don’t directly enhance economic growth, but provide the social stability necessary for long term growth.
Harris and Walz exude the same “I know what’s best for you” California Elitism that raises the hackles of Midwestern voters, watching them applaud their own pronouncements and nodding their heads in unison at every accusation of racism and sexism and misogyny against people who simply want their feel safe in their communities and live their daily struggles without fear. We’ve been watching them affirming each other’s prejudices with smugness and arrogance for twenty years and it’s transparent now. We’re hated.
By a foreign elite who control the government and the money and claim the moral high ground.
I think Trump hit the nail on the head in his interview with Dr.Phil, when asked why people vote against common sense, Trump responded, “out of habit I think, Democrats have been controlling these cities for 100 years”.
Bad habit is the only reason I can Imagine people continuing to vote for that pig, Pritzker, and the Democrats who showcase him at their convention.
Dave- Just read a survey of economists, largely on the left, on attitudes towards price gouging laws, a current hot topic. Only about 7% support them as they think markets are important in setting prices so that supply will increase. It looks like relatively few probably means in the neighborhood of 90% or more.
Steve
I had intended to write “other than economists”. Yes, most economists other than the very most ideological believe in markets. I have also been researching the matter. Based on what I have found I was wrong. Conservative and moderate Democrats believe in markets. That’s good. Progressives do not. I’m writing a post on my findings.
In the Bag.
https://open.substack.com/pub/elizabethnickson/p/the-2024-cheat-and-whats-being-done?r=1f0f6t&utm_medium=ios