The Republican Wing Of The Democratic Party Shows Its Hand
>
I hate to say it but House Democrats desperately need their own progressive version of Newt Gingrich to give Pelosi, Hoyer, Clyburn, Crowley a boot up their asses. Beltway Democrats, who have settled comfortably into being the loser party— the way Robert Michel’s Republicans had before Newt Gingrich stuck sticks of dynamite up their tired asses in 1993— seem certain that the way forward is to look backward and keep repeating all the old mistakes that have devastated the party while protecting the pitiful perpetual minority in their positions of secondary grandeur. Josh Krasushaar speaks for the Beltway establishment; he’s their guy. And yesterday at the National Journal he reported on the playbook that will guarantee a Republican majority into perpetuity. “The key to the party’s revival,” he wrote, “lies in the upscale suburbs where Hillary Clinton made strong inroads.” He’s wrong, completely, utterly wrong— unless the Democratic Party wants to cede its base to Trumpist and become 100% Clintonian— a party of the 10% with an overly of pathetic identity politics.
All through the election, here at DWT, we screamed at the lamest of the Democratic Establishment organizations— the DCCC— to take advantage of moderate suburbanite disdain for Trump, particularly in the suburbs of Houston, San Antonio and Austin in Texas and in Orange County, California. But the DCCC is deaf, dumb and blind and didn’t even run candidates in red-leaning suburban districts where Hillary beat, or came close to beating, Trump. No candidates, no party infrastructure, no brains... that's Pelosi and Hoyer's DCCC.
Kraushaar and the establishment centrists he parrots, are desperate to prevent real change, so they’re embracing counterchange, pushing the Democratic Party to remake itself as their fathers’ GOP. That helps explain the hysterical viciousness with which they’re attacking Keith Ellison’s quest for the DNC chair. Exactly one month ago, we looked at GA-06, the Tom Price suburban Atlanta district Kraushaar and the Democratic establishment suddenly discovered yesterday. I’d like to see the centrists test out their theory that the future of the Democratic Party isn’t with working families but with wealthy professionals but winning the special election to replace Price. “The seeds of Democratic renewal,” wrote Kraushaar, “can be found in the affluent neighborhoods of Atlanta and its northern suburbs, where a quiet protest against Donald Trump’s Republican Party took place on Election Day. The diverse, moderate-minded constituents of Health and Human Services Secretary designee Tom Price took a markedly different view of Trump than working-class white voters in the Rust Belt. Mitt Romney carried this district with 61 percent of the vote in 2012—a seat that The Almanac of American Politics dubbed a ‘safe Republican district’—but Trump eked out just a 1-point win over Hillary Clinton in 2016.” Hillary lost the election, lost Georgia and lost GA-06 but here’s the perspective from the fiscally conservative Republican wing of the Democratic Party:
All through the election, here at DWT, we screamed at the lamest of the Democratic Establishment organizations— the DCCC— to take advantage of moderate suburbanite disdain for Trump, particularly in the suburbs of Houston, San Antonio and Austin in Texas and in Orange County, California. But the DCCC is deaf, dumb and blind and didn’t even run candidates in red-leaning suburban districts where Hillary beat, or came close to beating, Trump. No candidates, no party infrastructure, no brains... that's Pelosi and Hoyer's DCCC.
Kraushaar and the establishment centrists he parrots, are desperate to prevent real change, so they’re embracing counterchange, pushing the Democratic Party to remake itself as their fathers’ GOP. That helps explain the hysterical viciousness with which they’re attacking Keith Ellison’s quest for the DNC chair. Exactly one month ago, we looked at GA-06, the Tom Price suburban Atlanta district Kraushaar and the Democratic establishment suddenly discovered yesterday. I’d like to see the centrists test out their theory that the future of the Democratic Party isn’t with working families but with wealthy professionals but winning the special election to replace Price. “The seeds of Democratic renewal,” wrote Kraushaar, “can be found in the affluent neighborhoods of Atlanta and its northern suburbs, where a quiet protest against Donald Trump’s Republican Party took place on Election Day. The diverse, moderate-minded constituents of Health and Human Services Secretary designee Tom Price took a markedly different view of Trump than working-class white voters in the Rust Belt. Mitt Romney carried this district with 61 percent of the vote in 2012—a seat that The Almanac of American Politics dubbed a ‘safe Republican district’—but Trump eked out just a 1-point win over Hillary Clinton in 2016.” Hillary lost the election, lost Georgia and lost GA-06 but here’s the perspective from the fiscally conservative Republican wing of the Democratic Party:
Clinton carried suburban Atlanta’s Cobb County by 3 points, a dramatic 15-point swing from Mitt Romney’s resounding double-digit victory in the county four years earlier. Among the most-affluent precincts in Fulton County, Clinton won by 3 points. Clinton even carried white voters in the Atlanta metropolitan area by a 1-point margin, a stunning turnaround in a state that has historically been deeply polarized along racial lines.Sounds like Kraushaar was taking dictation from the New Dems or any part of the toxic anti-worker groups that want to see more Clintonism instead of a revitalized Democratic Party. Progressives are going to have to be vigilant and merciless in their battle for control of a party run by entrenched special interests who have grown fat and rich as the party has continued to sink and sink and lose and lose.
The results from the Atlanta suburbs offer Democrats a playbook for how to compete in the future—win over socially liberal, fiscally conservative voters who traditionally lined up with Republicans. This would pair the diverse Obama coalition with voters who have favored free markets and a tough-minded foreign policy. It would be a throwback to the centrist policies of Bill Clinton, along with a full-throated embrace of a diversifying America. It would concede some of the white working-class gains to Trump, while making an aggressive push to bring college-educated suburbanites into the Democratic fold.
Such a plan would bet on Trump overreaching as president—after all, his favorability still hovers in the mid-40s—and persuading voters who defected from him to keep supporting Democrats. A centrist-minded agenda would take a skeptical view of heavy-handed economic regulations, and focus on economic growth as its core principle. It would embrace a more muscular foreign policy, notably on Russian malfeasance and the terrorist threat at home. It would champion immigration reform and loudly oppose any measures that would hinder the flow of high-skilled labor into the country.
And it would reject some of the more politically damaging elements of President Obama’s record, particularly his hostile actions towards Israel and all-too-frequent pandering to protest groups trafficking in divisive rhetoric. As flawed as Clinton was, her strong performance in some GOP-friendly suburbs was partially attributable to her solid pro-Israel record and ability to keep some distance from the rabble-rousers.
In short, this strategy would draw the map that Democrats have always said represents their future—locking in Colorado and Virginia, while making a renewed play for North Carolina, Arizona, and Georgia. It would benefit from demographic diversity while mollifying moderate whites. It risks losing a little ground in the Midwest, but bets that a more talented presidential nominee can win back working-class voters while holding onto the gains in the suburbs. It would rely on making inroads with white voters, while being a bit less dependent on historic turnout and margins from African-Americans.
Consider: A 50 percent majority of voters believe that government is doing too much, according to exit polling. Nearly one-quarter of them were Clinton voters. These are the type of voters that Democrats would be smart to target as they look to rebuild.
This diagnosis runs counter to the advice of socialist-minded senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who claim the election results were a backlash against the Democratic Party’s closeness to Wall Street. They want to reshape Trump’s populism leftward, energizing the base in the process.
But this approach ignores the cultural disconnect between working-class whites and the leadership of today’s Democratic Party. The growing threat of terrorism, worsening race relations, concern over illegal immigration, and a disproportionate focus on bathroom bills played key roles in pushing blue-collar voters away from Democrats. While economic anxiety played an important role, it’s hard to see how Democrats will be able to out-Trump the incoming president without shedding their social liberalism. It’s very plausible that, because of Trump, Northern working-class whites could follow the path into the Republican Party that their Southern and Appalachian counterparts paved over the past two decades. And without Obama on a ballot, it’s unlikely that Democrats will benefit from black-turnout levels that hit historic highs in 2008 and 2012.
Democrats only need to look at last year’s election results to understand that they’ll need to reorient the party in the post-Obama era. On paper, they have an opportunity to cement their gains from the upscale suburbs to provide a springboard to a majority. But if an increasingly liberal base continues to dictate policy, the math for Democrats gets a lot tougher. The coming months will indicate whether they will be acting more like Walter Mondale or Bill Clinton in the wake of demoralizing defeats.
Labels: GA-06, Kraushaar, progressives vs Democrats, Republican wing of the Democratic Party
3 Comments:
Boy is this guy a doozy thanks for your "Words Of Wisdom" about the party Josh i feel better already.
This guy is totally clueless about GA if he thinks upscale white neighborhoods will be a winning focus for the Dems.
Evidence, particularly the parts of the article below that talk about the rapidly changing demographics of GA:
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/08/defying-voter-suppression-nearly-400000-first-time-voters-cast-early-ballots-in-georgia/
Progressives in the "party" are an ever shrinking minority. Since the cabal of corrupteds (DLC) started selling the Democrap party to the same big money that has owned the Rs since before WWI, the liberal/progressive wing has atrophied to its now insignificant nothingness.
While the tiny minority now is more visible due to the increased distinction from the main body, it is still shrinking in inverse proportion to the amount of money the main body earns on its knees.
If progressive voters ever want representation, they'll need to find/fund/found a different party than the one that lies to them as it lays down for ever more money from the .01%. If that ever happens, the minority of liberal/progressive "party" members will join them very quickly, I'm sure.
Post a Comment
<< Home