After being elected as the new chairman of the Democratic National Committee in February, Ken Martin said, “We’ve got the right message. What we need to do is connect it back with the voters.” In other words, we need to get voters to listen to us. Really? Or could it be that it is the Democrats who need to do some listening?
At this point, the party finds itself with its lowest approval rating since 1968, at 27%. Sure, our blue district Congresswoman, Pramila Jayapal, can round up a crowd in Seattle to cheer her calls to The Resistance. But a better use of time might be a hard look at how people actually voted in 2024. A careful analysis of the vote is on offer at Ezra Klein’s recent podcast with pollster David Shor, titled “Democrats Need to Face Why Trump Won.”
Among other things, Shor’s analysis shows that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, a higher voter turnout does not favor Democrats. Had there been a higher turnout, Trump would have won by a significantly higher percentage, nearly 5%. Another enduring Democratic Party assumption has been that they have a lock on people of color and on the young. Neither is true these days. Ideology is proving more important than racial or ethnic identity — which suggests that saying those who voted Republican, or any one who questions Democratic Party orthodoxy, is presumptively “racist” may not be the best move.
Beyond a come-to-Jesus moment in relation to voter data, there are a host of liberals/progressives who are offering important new ideas for what Democrats need to be going forward. Instead of “say it again louder” as Ken Martin seems to suggest or stand pat (“I wouldn’t change anything”) as Kamala Harris chose to do, a new message and agenda are required.
Let me recommend some things I’ve been reading and listening to of late from people who think the Democrats and fellow liberal/progressives have had some key things wrong.
One of the very best is David Leonhardt’s recent article in the New York Times Magazine on how the Social Democrats of Denmark have faced up to immigration, and what this means for a party that cares about working people. It might seem curious to make my top recommendation for rethinking the Democratic agenda an article about Denmark and immigration, but Leonhardt opens eyes on similar challenges in the U.S. (there is an audio option if you prefer to listen to Leonhardt’s article.)
Beyond immigration, a second issue is affordable housing and its impact on social mobility. Social mobility was once a key characteristic of the American Dream and a driver of prosperity. But now, according to Yoni Applebaum in an article at The Atlantic “How Progressives Froze The American Dream,” social mobility has ground to a near halt. He expands on the theme in his book, Stuck: How the Privileged and Propertied Broke the Engine of American Opportunity.
In line with the title of his article, Applebaum notes the irony: “Mobility is what made this country prosperous and pluralistic, diverse, and dynamic. Now progressives are destroying the very force that produced the values they claim to cherish.”
No one is offering more prods for fresh thinking for a Democratic and liberal agenda than Ezra Klein. Along with his co-author, Derek Thompson, Klein is just out with, Abundance: What Progress Takes. Like Applebaum, they focus a good deal on how zoning laws and environmental review requirements have become tools preventing building much of anything (such as high-speed rail), and in particular building affordable housing. Moreover, as liberals who believe in government, these authors ask, why can’t government get stuff built? Lots of money was appropriated for public works during the Biden administration, but almost nothing actually got built. What happened?
Thompson and Klein argue that while conservatives attack government, liberals have been defending a government that doesn’t work. They advocate an “Abundance Agenda” at the heart of progressive politics. You can get a podcast with them from The Free Press where Bari Weiss asks, “Can Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson Save the Left From Itself?”
One sub-plot here is that wealthier, often politically liberal people have fostered systems that, while serving their interests, have been blind to other not-so-well-off Americans, namely, the non-college educated working class and much of the middle class that now finds itself stuck or priced out of cities where they grew up or where they might like to live and work.
The Democratic Party has come to represent a wealthy elite, one that is focused on issues of racial, ethnic, sexual and gender identity. It’s not that these issues aren’t important. But they aren’t the only important thing. And for many Americans they are the issues that are nowhere near the front burner.
Many voters have different issues, different priorities: jobs, affordable housing, social disorder, uncontrolled immigration, and a government that works. Do the Dem’s have a marketing problem, a problem of getting people to listen to them? It’s deeper than that. They are one’s who need to be doing the listening.
I’ve been noticing the shift to “abundance” language recently and beyond this being consultancy class word salad, it’s really a significant pivot to what was previously the stuff of GOP: deregulation and private sector solutions to big problems. It’s great they’re retooling, but I suspect the big minds here are once again making an assumption that the thinky stuff will prevail over what is more heart than head.
Two comments: a theme that would resonate with middle and lower socio-economic classes, immigrants, and minority cohorts of voters is REMOVING BARRIERS. If Democrats were devoted to removing barriers — to voting, to education, to affordable child care, to home ownership, to entrepreneurship, to health care — that would provide a memorable umbrella that would span a variety of constituents and provide a frame for platform and campaign positions.
2nd: Republicans won the bulk of rural and small-town counties. If Democrats would set priorities on the basis of rural and small town concerns, would that not cover key urban issues as well, help bridge the urban/rural divide, and weaken Republican hold on these communities?
Fletch: I am reminded by your comment that there are two basic values for liberals to enact: protect individualism, and strive for equality of opportunity. I also suspect that this pair of values works across the urban-rural divide, and that they comport with your advice to Remove Barriers.
I wonder if today, you cannot be pragmatic and get elected. I think that if you don’t stick to one side, you are an enemy to both sides.
Bipartisanship, while nice to old-timers like us, does not fly in today’s politics.
Probably the dumbest policy that the Democrats have brought forward is “Free College For All”. This sounds like a good policy, but it is bad politics.
Let’s break it down. The policy appears good at face value. Income is correlated to level of education; so let’s promote more education. The policy provides more opportunity for lower income high school students who could excel. It removes the burden of debt which keeps new college graduates from saving for homes and raising families.
The problem is that not every job requires a college education.
What do working class people hear? The truck drivers, warehouse workers, grocery clerks, farmers and ag workers, etc. What they hear is that their jobs count less than others. What they hear is that their kids who aren’t going to college are worth less than the smart kids. “Free College For All” reinforces the perception that the Democratic Party is one of the urban elite.
Frankly the message that Democrats should be saying is that everyone that shows up day-after-day and puts in a days’ work deserves access to health care and a pension.
Heartily agree with you at the end – took the words out of my mouth – but don’t get the take on education. I’m not sure to what extent “free college for all” is really a thing, but anyway, if grocery clerks hear that their kids who aren’t going to college … hey, wait a minute, why are they not going to college? Is it because they don’t have the scratch? The urban elite problem wants to know.
This is not to say that reducing college tuition will bring parity to society, but maybe it’s a step. Would it make admission competition even stiffer? Would that bring pressure on public schools to produce better scholarship? America could stand to improve in some areas.
Example (I think) of what Sarah alludes to: “they focus a good deal on how zoning laws and environmental review requirements have become tools preventing building much of anything … building affordable housing.”
The deregulation we’ve been seeing in the Seattle area has not worked. Right? Upzones, reduced on site parking, the right to cut down every tree … there will always be something more they can ask for, but our council so far, prices are still among the highest in the nation. Because these policies — Democratic Party et al. policies, Seattle city hall and Olympia — do not work. That’s because they’re really Reagan Republican policies, but whatever. “Abundance”, is it? Actually there has been a lot of housing built – record amounts, not prevented at all – but somehow, still absurdly high housing costs.
Meanwhile, housing and real estate in general is a significant investment resource. Captains of the capital industry like Blackstone buy it up, and package the managed assets for people who don’t want to be bothered with the inconveniences of immediate real estate ownership and management, and just want to enjoy financial returns on their capital. And returns there are. So, ask yourself, if you’re a “supply and demand Econ 101” enthusiast, where does that money come from? The returns from investing in Seattle area real estate? Here’s my theory: it was sucked out of the pockets of people in this area who need a roof over their heads, and in general sucked out of the area economy that has to supply its residents with the wherewithal to get that roof. Don’t tell me it’s what we need to encourage investment in housing.
We have had flickers of interest in this in local politics – Cary Moon brought it up – but it seems to be, as we used to say, a “non-starter.” Your “moderates” (i.e., let’s bring back Reagan Republicans and call them Democrats) sure aren’t going to touch it with a stick.
What would the chances be for the Democratic Party, if they set aside the stuff that for decades hasn’t been working, like deregulation, DEI whatever that means, and really took out the radical axes and went after every kind of exploitation?