At Harvard Business Review Gautam Mukunda provides a strategic framework for actions by Democrats to try to emerge from what is possibly the party’s weakest position since it became a political party. His strategy has four distinct fronts:
- Oppose Trump-supported popular measures, e.g. his infrastructure bill.
- Support Republican elite-supported popular measures, e.g. increased defense spending.
- Oppose Trump-supported unpopular measures, e.g. substantial decreases in legal immigration.
- Oppose Republican elite-supported unpopular measures, e.g. Medicare privatization, and blame Trump for them.
I think it’s far more likely that Democrats will take a purely oppositional approach and oppose everything supported by any Republican, ignoring the political reality that Americans see the country as going in the wrong direction by substantial margins but less so that at any time in the last four years (and then only for a short period—the 4th quarter of 2012). In other words Americans still hunger for change.
I think there are two problems with Dr. Mukunda’s proposed approach. First, he assumes without providing evidence that marginal Trump voters are the same as independents in general. What if they aren’t? It’s the entire linchpin of the strategy.
He also assumes, without evidence, that the circumstances of Democrats and Republicans are symmetrical, i.e. similar strategies will have similar effects. But Democrats are the party of government or at least seen to be such and strident opposition to Trump and/or Republicans by bureaucratic Washington encourages that view. What if a federal government that continues in its dysfunction is blamed on the Democrats?
“But Democrats are the party of government or at least seen to be such and strident opposition to Trump and/or Republicans by bureaucratic Washington encourages that view. What if a federal government that continues in its dysfunction is blamed on the Democrats?”
This is one of the curious inconsistencies in the Democratic party. They are the party of government and government solutions, but seem completely uninterested in effective government or government reform. I’m reminded of a Nancy Pelosi interview on the Daily Show in the aftermath of the botched Obamacare rollout a couple years ago where she either ignores or just doesn’t get Stewart’s point about effective governance.
It doesn’t make sense, I would think effective governance would be one of the top priorities for a party that believes that government is good and necessary for solving problems for the American people.
“Oppose Trump-supported unpopular measures, e.g. substantial decreases in legal immigration.”
The key is which policies are unpopular in the areas that hate Trump vs ones that are hated by the whole country.
For example, I would love to see the results if the US conducted a Brexit like referendum on whether to decrease legal immigration.
I don’t believe there has been anything controversial about legal immigration. It’s been issues of those illegally coming here or overstaying visas who have been at the hub of continuing and unresolved tension.
I used to think that way. After seeing Brexit, it makes me wonder. The UK is not the US – but a chief issue was immigration from EU which was legal.
Or think refugees and H1B, they are both legal but there is no consensus to keep it unreformed or make it easier.
Immigration issues in the EU simmered from under their open border policies, exploding into a Brexit uprising with the mass exodus of refugees leaving ME countries and flooding into the EU.
Jan
Maybe not exactly the same, but H1B visas appear the be a very real issue. It’s bull that you can’t find talent here. For most people immigration and this are a distinction without a difference.
I personally believe the dem’s irrational, almost demented, behavior over the Trump election will backfire on them. In the end Trump may even look more sane and statesmanlike than his rampaging critics!
The obnoxious grandstanding Senate Dems are displaying at the hearings also do little, IMO, but make their party look petty, petulant, and tone deaf to the overall needs of the country. Instead, they are playing to and bending protocols in order to gain favor with a myriad of leftist groups – BLM, anarchists, people woth socialist/Marxist orientations, Nation of Islam. While all their rants and ravings make for good TV, it dismays and turns off a good chunk of “ordinary” people. And, while star studded events go all in to politicize what should be entertainment venues, I think their audience will shrink in ratio to the respect they lose from those same “ordinary” citizens.
The obnoxious, grandstanding of the Tea Party didn’t seem to hurt that much. You had the GOP Congress repeal Obamacare 60 times. You had about 30 Benghazi hearings. They set a new record on filibusters. ETC. One of the more prominent GOP leaders grandstanded and lied about Obama’s birth status, and he ended up as POTUS. Really, nothing the Democrats have done yet begins to approach wha the GOP did over the last 8 years. I suppose with me effort they could surpass the GOP, but it will take a sustained effort.
Steve
Steve,
Maybe partisan perspective derails one’s POV. However, the Teaparty movement, although boisterous and packed with dissenting people (like the post Trump movement is today), never had the violence or vulgarity that is being witnessed and heard by the current crowds. Parents, who come with children as a civic lesson, have had to leave because of the language and crudeness of the crowd. Also, I don’t recall police escorts for dem politicians because they felt vulnerable to being attacked by the vehemence of anti- Obamacare protesters.
As I’ve written many times before, the numerous Obamacare repeals were symbolically done, as a congressional protest again this disputed bill. No one, no way felt any of these motions had a chance of success, as it had to go through Senate posturing and then be vetoed by the democrat president.
The Benghazi hearings were incredibly blocked by the WH, and the bureaucracy supporting the WH, in delivering emails, evidence etc. Even the initial investigation was shoddy, at best, without HRC even testifying, no notes taken, Greg Hicks testimony being obscured, as well as no idea where President Obama was that night, and what he knew and didn’t know about the circumstances surrounding the tragedy. Remember, 4 people died that night, including an ambassador, something that hadn’t occurred since 1979! The Benghazi affair, lack of security, no one being fired (only Greg Hicks was demoted for telling the truth) was a big deal, and an incident that was held in abeyance until long after the 2012 election, and then considered an old and “resolved” controversy by mostly democrats.
“Really, nothing the Democrats have done yet begins to approach wha the GOP did over the last 8 years.”
What did the GOP do, other than being the loyal opposition party to Obama’s policies? When an attempt was made to modify the Obamacare implementation timeline, the President and his allies roundly criticized republicans for doing so. Consequently, the government was closed down briefly, and Obama’s reaction was to take it out on vets by vindictively closing down memorials around DC. And, then after all that partisan strife had ebbed, President Obama quietly amended the timeline himself (similar to what the republicans had requested) so as to make the implementation better for his legacy. The GOP, when threatened by President Obama with sequestration, didn’t blink (as the president thought they would), which did decrease deficit spending for a while — something that President Obama then took credit for. As I recall, no one in the GOP had sit-ins, no republican boycotted hearings for the seating of Obama’s cabinet, and the 2008 cabinet appointments were approved rather gingerly, as compared to what is happening now. I would be interested to see what awful things the GOP supposedly did that are worse than the conduct of the dems today!