You may be interested in some of Ruy Teixeira’s takes on today’s Demmocratic Party from an interview of him by Blake Hounshell (formerly blogger of the lamented blog American Power) and Leah Askarinam in the New York Times. If you’re not familiar with the name Mr. Teixeira, along with John Judis, wrote the book The Emerging Democratic Majority which has been canonical among progressives for some time. I criticized it at the time—in short Mr. Teixeira has come around pretty close to my way of thinking. Some telling quotes:
Demographic change was inevitably shifting the political terrain. It did not make it inevitable that Democrats would benefit.
And even on this raw demographic basis, it’s not crazy that there’s a natural popular-vote Democratic majority in the country. However, that does not translate into political power. We very specifically said — and this is widely ignored — that for this majority to attain and exercise political power, you have to retain a significant fraction of the white working class. The country was changing, but it wasn’t changing that fast.
Damage control.
The second thing we didn’t anticipate was the eventual effect of professional-class hegemony in the Democratic Party — that it would tilt the Democrats so far to the left on sociocultural issues that it would actually make the Democratic Party significantly unattractive to working-class voters.
It’s a huge liability for the Democrats, because the people who staff the party, the people who staff the think tanks, the advocacy groups, the foundations, the staffers, they’re all singing from the same hymnal to some extent. They live in this liberal cultural bubble, particularly the younger members.
Almost two-thirds of the top 1% of income earners, mostly the “professional class”, are Democrats and 60% of the ultra-wealthy, are Democrats.
And the extent to which this is completely ignored by the dominant liberal Democratic discourse, to me, is completely astonishing. Do they really believe that the Black voters who formed the base of the Democratic Party think like Ibram X. Kendi, or the leaders of BLM? Are they crazy? I mean, how can they not understand there’s enormous sort of diversity among the worldviews of people within the Black community? They vary by class, they vary by age, they vary in all kinds of ways. And the idea that they are sort of all on board with this crusade against the superficial aspects of so-called systemic racism, that that’s really what they care about, is fanciful, really.
So, either a preponderance of the Democratic donor base are, to use Mr. Teixeira’s diction, “crazy” or something else is afoot. I’ve provided one possible explanation: vanguardism. Here’s another: think “The Walrus and the Carpenter”. It’s hard to believe they’re simply mistaken.
Here’s his prescription:
Well, it won’t be easy. You try to be productive, you try to get the Electoral Count Act and associated reforms done. You try to get some sort of Build Back Better thing through Congress with Joe Manchin’s support, or you break it up into pieces that are popular and try to get them through. These are the kinds of things you have to do to convince people you’re effective, and you can govern.
The second thing is, whatever you haven’t done to try to get the country back to normal, do it. We’re fast approaching the end of this pandemic. A Democrat should be ready to reopen the country. You’ve just got to send the message that what you want is for people to be happy and for things to be back to normal.
A third thing here that’s related to any elections: They’ve got to try to lift the ceiling on their support levels, which I think will necessitate some drawing of lines within the party, where you say, “No, no, we believe in being tough on crime. We think it is an absolutely atrocious idea to defund the police.â€
He’s right. It won’t be easy. I can’t imagine the Marcusist progressives that form such a large proportion of the Democratic leadership doing any of those things.
Its hard to believe, but the book is 20 years old.
But let’s put things in perspective. Since 2002, Democrats have won the Presidency 3 of 5 times, including 3 of the last 4, with the last one the hardest trick of all, winning after the Republicans had the Presidency for only 4 years.
Democrats also had a filibuster proof majority in 2008-2010, first time since Jimmy Carter.
And the Federal Government has enacted a whole bunch of reforms that were on the Democratic wish-list but seemed unlikely in 2002; same-sex marriage, health care reform, sentencing reform. The federal government is bigger then ever, spending is at its highest levels.
Perhaps Teixeira was imagining hegemonic majorities (2/3 for Constitutional Amendments) — but a good case is to be made that the emerging Democratic Majority emerged; and is still in power today; and likely in power for quite a while yet.
With regards to timing; I was thinking more about the implications for Build Back Better or whatever they call the next iteration of it.
I disregard points about demographics, all Presidential appointments take into account factors which are not allowed in regular employment contexts — Reagan campaigned on nominating the first women to the Supreme Court. I am more interested whether Biden will pick someone from the big 2 (Yale/Harvard) or from some other law school, a hobby horse of mine.
“…. professional-class hegemony in the Democratic Party… would tilt the Democrats so far to the left on sociocultural issues that it would actually make the Democratic Party significantly unattractive to working-class voters.”
And, given more religious roots than the professional (white) class, Hispanics and Blacks.
“…get the country back to normal, do it. We’re fast approaching the end of this pandemic.”
As I noted recently, this hysteria has run its course. Barring an alpha covid mutation people have seen the ineffectiveness of public policy, the politization of public policy, and the costs of public policy. It never made sense, as I pointed out in late spring of 2020. And now anyone who cares to can see it. The only ones left will be the traumatized/personality disordered, and those with a desire to control others, such as politicians and bureaucrats.
I differ with CO on two points. The Dem majority has existed most of my lifetime, far before 2003. And second, by overplaying their hand people – independents, really – have seen first hand what the progressives would do if unchecked. The authoritarian streak is quite alarming. I see a pendulum swing.
The backlash against the self styled professional/elite class was what Trumpism was really all about. Its too bad he was such a jackass and imperfect vessel.