Wow. Out of the Mouths of Babes … er … the Examiner.
This was published yesterday morning, but I just saw it now. I agree with almost everything it says. The one exception concerns Bruce Braley, who despite the silly controversies about chickens and Iowa Farmer Grassley, is someone I hope remains involved in Dem politics.
The spot-on-ist part of this really spot-on analysis? The last two paragraphs:
[T]he message to Democratic politicians is clear: “Abortion and gay marriage are over, and they’re over because you’ve won.” Far from being saddened over the midterms, Democrats can cautiously move forward from narrow identity politics to crafting a comprehensive domestic agenda rooted in economic populism, one that will resonate with voters of every gender, race, orientation, class and creed.
Hillary Clinton, especially, should take note.
But I’ll add that no one should presume any longer that Clinton will be the default nominee. Even if she does take note.
Democrats have to understand that the office of president is not the be all and end all of electoral politics. It is likely that pretty much any decent Democratic candidate can win the presidential election given the sort of turnouts that occur in presidential years. Tuesday’s loss can be tied directly to turnout – at 37% it’s clear that the folks who vote for Democrats didn’t participate.
Democrats, or better, Progressives, actually have a solid argument that they are the true conservatives in today’s political landscape. They represent the idea of conserving the gains and fairness embodied in the New Deal and the Civil Rights movement, both of which are under reactionary assault. Democrats represent a responsible sort of American individualism, and individualism grounded in the realistic context of society and institutions. Today’s Right embraces a nihilistic form of individualism that is more akin to every man for himself than anything that speaks of order and progress.
Yes, it’s important who is president but equally important is who fills the slots in the legislature – our system is heavily weighted towards legislative power. There is a clear line from local county commissions and school boards to state legislatures to Congress. Democrats need to build an electorate that doesn’t show up once every four years to cheer a leader but instead grows and sustains itself from basic fundamental principles of the value of the individual citizen participating in the larger enterprise of self-government.
I know we’re going to talk about who runs for president but the way to combat money in politics, to overcome the power of the plutocrats, to ensure a society built on fairness and opportunity is to focus on issues of justice, economic growth, and, most important of all, participation in the process of active citizenship. I’m not talking about some sort of populist fire that is equal parts reactionary conformism and reductive individualism but true, active participation in the political process.
Preserving the positive changes of the New Deal and Civil Rights means reinforcing the ideas of broad participative responsible citizenship and that involves much more than focusing on who wins the presidency. The way to take the message away from the consultants and the plutocrats that hire the consultants is by building solidly from the ground up.
Oops, I think I got this comment on the wrong thread – meant to go on the candidate wishlist post that preceded this one.
Don’t sweat where your comment is. It’s quite well written. Well said. NancyO
Beverly
Are you saying that abortion and gay marriage are
“narrow identify politics” issues and that Democrats should
move away from them?
Is this why you think that Hillary won’t necessarily win the nomination?
The people who voted yesterday were overwhelmingly white
and a disproportionate number were over 60.
They do not represent the majority of Democrats. The majority
are strongly in favor of gay marriage and protecting a woman’s right to an abortion.
White Americans over 60 are on their way to becoming a minority. Democrats should not craft their message to
appeal to white, rural populists.
Not so sure the culture wars are over WRT abortion….the very fact that major candidates for public office, including Presidential candidates, are publicly against even birth control shows that the abortion/misogynist wing of the RW is fully engaged and ready to continue to fight for their position. The fact that they are at the statewide and even citywide level shuttering clinics and imposing their narrow views on Americans is additional proof of their interest in this issue, and they have shown remarkable durability on it.
Also, too, “Hobby Lobby”!
Am I saying that abortion and gay marriage are “narrow identify politics” issues and that Democrats should move away from them, Maggie? No, and no. See my response to your comment in another thread.
Is this why you think that Hillary won’t necessarily win the nomination? Again, no. I think that if Hillary Clinton is challenged by an economic-populist senator—Warren, Brown, Merkley—she will not get the nomination. And I’m saying that any of those three would have a far better chance to win the general election, because those—THOSE—are the issues most on people’s minds. Those issues include the minimum wage, for example, but encompass much, much more. Clinton can adopt progressive stances, but there’s a big, big difference between someone who’s been in the trenches on those issues for a long time (and can expound in depth on them) and someone who still thinks glass-ceiling issues are what most people care about.
The people who voted yesterday were overwhelmingly white and a disproportionate number were over 60, indeed. What makes you think Hillary Clinton would be a bigger draw than Warren, Brown or Merkley? That she’s a celebrity? That she’s Bill Clinton’s wife? It’s not the 1990s anymore.
The majority are strongly in favor of gay marriage and protecting a woman’s right to an abortion? Yup. My point, exactly. As a national political matter, there is no need to focus on them; we’ve won on those issues.
White Americans over 60 are on their way to becoming a minority. Democrats should not craft their message to appeal to white, rural populists. Yup, again. Which is why Warren’s and Brown’s and Merkley’s message is the stuff that matters politically now. I don’t know of any economic-populist message that appeals to rural whites but not to urban and suburban ones.
PQS, clearly, in the South and border states, abortion is not a settled issue. But these are state issues, not national ones, except as constitutional matters decided by the federal courts. What’s clearly settled is “Personhood” constitutional amendments and federal abortion-related criminal laws—which are, in addition to Court appointments, all that matter federally. The only input that a president has in this is whether he or she signs into law some “Personhood” criminal bill passed by Congress. But, clearly, no such bill will be passed by Congress.
As for Hobby Lobby, that’s entirely up to the Supreme Court. And the time for appointing winger cultural-issues justices has passed. Alito will prove to have been the last one.
Which is what I, and others, mean when we say that the culture-wars, as a national political matter, are over.
Beverly–
You still seem to ignore the fact that polls show the Hillary is the most popular Democrat in the nation.
This is why she would be a much bigger draw then Brown or Merlkey
Warren is also popular–but she is quite clear that she will not run against Hillary. She support Clinton.
(Have you spoke to Warren about this?
As for the notion that the culture wars are over.
Please tell an 18-year-old trying to get an abortion in Texas (or a
40-year-old who already has 4 kids.)
Please tell a single mother earning 25% less than a man doing the same jobs that the culture wars are over.
These are Not state issues. Ultimately, the Supreme Court could
overturn the hard-won right to abortion that so many of us have fought for.
What are the issues most on people’s minds?
It all depends on who you are.
Black, Latino, female, male? Middle-class? Low-income working a min. wage job?
Not to burst anyone’s bubble about it was a lack of turn out that cost DINA this election cycle. For in Ma. which finding a republican in state office is almost none extent. The turn out was very high and lines were not even finished voting at 8:00 pm. In Ma. the high turn out may have been to do with ballot questions. Still it was a lost for democrats.
When as Beverly mentioned that until the democrats start having progressive policies that effect the pocket book of ordinary citizens. The populist is going to vote for less taxes over social issues, and the lessor evil.
Maggie, I don’t want to continue our spitting contest, especially since I greatly admire your writings, based on your expertise, on healthcare insurance issues. And I hadn’t planned to write further in this thread of the others.
But I will now, to make four points: First, that you and I are talking about two separate groups of people—the people who care almost entirely about culture-wars and “women’s” issues (your concern), and the people who, irrespective of their views on the culture-wars issues, really, really care about broad economic issues and trends that effect a substantial cross-section of the public, female and male (my concern, and apparently as of late this week, other Dems’ concerns, too. See, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/11/07/morning-plum-the-democratic-party-has-a-cultural-problem/.)
Second, you think, best as I can tell, that the two sets of policy issues are mutually exclusive—that our political candidates must choose between caring about culture-wars and “women’s” issues or caring about broad economic issues and trends. I think that once a Democratic candidate makes his or her position known on the culture-wars and women’s issues, and informs, the public about the Republican’s statements on these issues—and has pointed out such problems with the Republican’s claims about his or her earlier statements (e.g., that if the Republican really didn’t understand the implications of a “personhood” amendment, and really thought that such an amendment just meant … whatever .. then the Republican is not really very bright)—the Democrat should discuss other policy issues and concerns.
There’s a big, big difference between opposing Republicans’ imbecilic attempts at legislation or amending the Constitution on these culture-wars issues—once you’ve pointed out the other side’s proposal and made clear you’ll try to block it, you’ve made your point—and actually proposing or supporting legislation of your own. Minimum-wage, equal-pay, pre-K access, family leave–these legislative proposals are great—very, very important—but what about other, much broader economic and socioeconomic issues?
Third, Hillary hagiography strikes me as cultish. This woman has piggybacked her entire public career on her husband’s, and pretends (along with her adoring fans) that she herself is responsible for it. It’s not quite George W. Bush/George H.W. Bush. But it’s not that far from it, either. Had Eleanor Roosevelt lived in this era and become a politician, she would have been awesome. But that’s because of who SHE was—HER breadth of knowledge, HER intellect, HER eloquence, HER personality. What conceivable basis is there for treating Hillary Clinton as though she were Eleanor Roosevelt?
No, I don’t ignore the polls that show that Hillary Clinton is the most popular Democrat in the nation. I don’t CARE that Hillary Clinton is the most popular Democrat in the nation. Has anyone outside of Ohio HEARD of Sherrod Brown? Has anyone outside of Oregon heard of Jeff Merkley? And how many people, really—especially older people—even know who Elizabeth Warren IS? How quickly that would change if one of them declared a primary candidacy!
Nor do I think what matters is who is the most popular—i.e., best-known—Democrat, given that Independents make up a substantial part of the electorate.
Forgive me for this, but I think that what will matter in 2016 is actual policy discussion.
Finally, there’s the issue of President Jarrett—er—President Obama. I strongly urge readers to read this current article in Politico: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/fire-valerie-jarrett-112659_full.html#.VF409lXF_hA. Good grace. I mean … just … good grace. During the Bush administration, at least Dick Cheney held an elected position. Who the HELL is Valerie Jarrett??? Or, for that matter, Michelle Obama??? (Please read that article. It’s downright jaw-dropping—really breathtaking.)
The article does seem to indicate that between Valerie and Michelle; a difficult job was made harder for Obama.