Farewell to FDR’s Coalition

While I found Joel Kotkin’s discussion at UnHerd of what he characterizes as “a looming Democratic civil war” interesting and largely agree with his analysis of the various factions that comprise today’s Democratic Party I think there are a few things he’s missing. Here’s a snippet or two from the piece.

Take the Democrats’s newest supporters: America’s tech oligarchs, Wall Street financiers and urban real estate speculators. They may act “woke” on issues surrounding gender, race and the environment. But such “virtue signalling” is no substitute for the drastic policies pushed by the party’s Left: the confiscation of vast wealth, the break-up of monopolies and the introduction of ever-higher taxes. Big business, after all, is the clear winner in the status quo that the Left, with good reason, despises.

But the impending Democratic civil war is more than, as some conservatives see it, a two-dimensional conflict between “the establishment and the radicals”. Largely ignored in this narrative is the most unappreciated, least articulate yet arguably the largest Democrat-voting bloc: middle and working-class moderates who make up roughly 50% of the party. These voters may often favour populist economics, but remain threatened by the cultural, economic and environmental policies pushed by the other two factions.

and

Certainly, parts of Biden’s program — expanding health coverage as well as investments in basic infrastructure and manufacturing — could appeal to these voters, who are now generally supportive of an activist government. But Biden has also backed measures on cultural and environmental issues that are unlikely to win over the traditional working and middle classes. For example, fracking bans, already endorsed by Vice President Harris, could, according to the US Chamber of Commerce, cost 14 million jobs, far more than the eight million lost in the Great Recession.

Belying his regular guy image, Biden has also expressed support for programmes that would force suburban areas to densify. It is likely few suburbanites, the majority of all Americans, would welcome federal overseers deciding how their communities should be changed. Meanwhile, attempts to force residents out of their cars and into transit, something they were abandoning well before Covid, seems quixotic as well as politically stupid. The President’s Transportation Secretary has even suggested a tax on “vehicle miles” travelled, a measure almost calculated to alienate middle and working-class families outside a few dense urban cores.

and

Biden has already delivered on one of tech’s biggest concerns: the restoration of HIB tech workers — essentially, relatively cheap short-time servants from Asia. The Bay Area economy, for example, depends on for as much as 40% of its workforce from non-citizens. It’s no surprise that the travel ban and Trump’s often crude policies on immigration helped transform Silicon Valley into a virtually one-party state .

But this corporate Leftism extends well beyond Silicon Valley. Where the Democrats once ruled mining and manufacturing towns; today they represent 41 of the 50 wealthiest Congressional districts. Wall Street and the tech oligarchy can afford not to see Biden’s “green agenda” as raising living costs or threatening jobs. Instead, Valley oligarchs and Wall Street financiers salivate over the potential killing to be made from subsidies for their renewable fuels investments and electric car schemes, as the radical filmmaker Michael Moore, among others, has documented. The green economy has already spawned its first mega-billionaire, Elon Musk, whose core businesses feed largely on regulatory and tax policies that favour his products.

One of the things I think he’s missing is the “take it or leave it” attitude that has infected both political parties. Elected officials haven’t actually represented their home districts in years. By and large they actually represent the consensus in Washington, DC. Some blame that on the electorate but not I. I attribute it to huge, unwieldy gerrymandered districts which inevitably yield winners much like their predecessors. Those districts are neither competitive nor representative in any meaningful sense. In the last four elections a ridiculously small number of seats have changed parties and in some states 2/3s of candidates ran completely unopposed. The candidates represent themselves and the party leadership because they can. What’s the alternative when a candidate runs unopposed?

Another thing I think he’s missing is the affiliational nature of voting. Many people vote for the Democratic candidate because she is a Democrat. What he may believe or stand for other than party affiliation makes relatively little difference.

The third thing I think he’s missing is that however fractured or dissatisfied Democrats may be Republicans may not be able to capitalize on their disaffection. There may be some shifts at the margins but no truly tectonic change. As Adam Smith observed 250 years ago, there’s a great deal of ruin in a nation.