As a resident "brand guru" for whatever movement this is/becomes, I feel compelled to share that the term "centrist" in all forms should be expunged from the vernacular.
Centrism evokes an idea of compromising between two different strong ideologies to achieve pragmatic ends.
This is not the way to define a movement. Movements by their very nature are not ones of compromise -- they are ones of ideologies.
So a centrist movement ontologically actually cannot exist.
What we need is an ideology that is bound by the idea that desired outcomes are based on situational analysis of whatever problem we're aiming to solve.
Some problems may require progressive outcomes for long-term sustainability (i.e., energy policy/social inclusion), while others may require conservative outcomes for long-term sustainability (i.e., constitutional norms/immigration policy).
The ability to analyze each politically-charged item through a rational lens of pros/cons related to the desired ends I believe is the hidden ideology living within this idea of "centrism."
So, it's not centrism at all. It's something far more powerful, useful, and precise.
And if it's not centrism, then I'd suggest we retire the term and start labeling things more effectively so that this approach may gain more ground, faster.
Of course, this means we need a new label to replace centrism. I don't have that term just yet. But I'm happy to organize a workshop to help get us there. Just need the right folks.
It's an interesting challenge - active political people almost universally hate "moderate" and "centrist" etc (although should be noted its hard to totally dismiss a term like "moderate" that a plurality of voters give themselves). That's part of why we've boosted the framing of "Progressive Centrism" by Jared Golden, because political activists, etc need a more compelling frame that connotes something more specific. Not sure if we'll ever get to one specific term, but rather several different terms that in total are markers of Democrats that are currently described as centrist (not beholden to a strict left/right ideology, depolarizing, compromise legislatively, take pragmatic approach to both policy & politics, etc) but who may be more exciting than what "moderate" or "centrist" would connote.
I am a centrist and do exist. Although it is true that my centrism could be called "compromising between two different strong ideologies to achieve pragmatic ends." which imo is just playing realpolitik and knowing that compromise works, I am mostly a centrist because I find that on any given issue there are valid points on the right and left and my opinion is usually an amalgam of that.
Take immigration. I am a grandchild of immigrants and think it is good for the country and support higher quotas, quicker family reunion. But I also believe in rule of law and that in a democratic society the majority gets to choose how and how many get admitted. I will try to convince my fellow citizens to allow more legal immigration, but I can't condone this notion on the left that if somebody enters illegally they have a right to stay here. And the politics of this are clear that it works for the GOP because by 60-40 voters trust the GOP more on immigration.
I truly believe that what keeps people polarized more is a blind allegiance to their ideological sides, where the reality is that a true focus on problem solving would bring in ideas from both the left and right.
I agree with how you approach your politics. I just think that using the existing ideologies as the grounding for the label for yours is limiting and constraining.
Perhaps, what would you suggest? I am a conservative Democrat. I support modest social welfarism including universal healthcare and strong environment protection, and more progressive taxation. But then I support a secure border, balanced budget, color blind policies. removal of homeless from public spaces, and strict rule of law whether rioters are on the left or right or shoplifters in CA.
I think regardless of the label, if you are running on the Dem side, it is hard not to suffer from the rather toxic brand that Democrats have developed, and the progressives will continue to do stuff that gives ammunition to FOX and Trump.
It wasn't a coincidence that Dan Osborne, who was the statewide candidate opposing a GOP incumbent (senator from NE) who most exceeded Harris' vote share, refused the Dem endorsement b/c he rightfully understood it would hurt him more than help him.
That is why I am leaning towards third party formation and started this New Democratic Party, fully aware that it will likely go nowhere, as did my Roy Cooper for President in 2024 but I am a fan of St. Jude the patron saint of lost causes : https://www.facebook.com/groups/1865832800920360
The other approach is that of Bernie Sanders, from the other side politically. He never joined the Democratic Party but almost won the primaries. I think I envision a political movement that would both seek Democratic nomination but also willing to run in areas where Dems have no chance as a third party like Osborne in NE.
It's a difficult place to be right now. But you'll be surprised how quickly the party's brand can evolve based on the nature, temperament, belief system and charisma of the presidential nominee.
Maybe and I hope so but I believe in Newton's law of politics that for each push in one political direction there is an equal and opposite reaction, so whatever the moderates can do, as Welcome is trying, to rebrand the party, the progressives will push the other way and I see it happening. The progressives are blaming the election debacle on not being left enough, odd considering that Harris was the third most progressive senator when in office (by Progressive Punch) and supported M4A, GND, reparations and the notorious Trump weaponized taxpayer funded transgender surgery for prisoners.
If Biden had moved center like Clinton instead of spending his time being the new FDR and having the most porous Southern Border in recent history he might have given Harris a better baton pass.
The only hope and a fairly reasonable chance is that Trump will self destruct and become less popular than the already unpopular Democrats.
Schumer is loathe to make tough trade-offs; and he's not very visionary.
For instance, he doesn't want to go hard anti-tariff (like trying to remove Trump's emergency trade powers, which the House Dems tried to do), because it would complicate his relationship with the industrial unions (I'm thinking of UAW here). Unfortunately, that kind of thinking also doesn't generate real innovation and out-of-the-box thinking -- like leveraging how tariffs hurts the Farm-States, which rely on export markets. Well, that puts Iowa, Kansas and perhaps others in the Farm Belt in play in 2026-- and you can see he has no game plan there.
Or another case in point, Alaska & Maine. Tariffs specifically on Canada are going to place enormous pressure on these border states -- Senator Schumer, there's an obvious opportunity to pick up votes here.
Good point that a new Dem strategy to win the Senate may include going on offense in different states than those they held in the 2010s. Yglesias gets into this a bit in his Bloomberg piece - it likely won't be a uniform centrism, but a flexibility to adapt in different states on different issues.
The discussion/search for party leadership, not House or Senate leadership may want to look to Maine and Gov. Janet Mills. She has recently deflated Trump by asserting that Maine would obey the law, apparently a “kick in the teeth” for the grabby president.
I think the part that is missing in all these articles is how to resolve these issues in the long run. Democrats have a gigantic Senate disadvantage, which means that they have to moderate to ever win it again, sure, but which also means that they should have a plan ready for the next time that they have a trifecta. It should be clear enough by now that next time they have a trifecta, they must have the votes to:
1. Eliminate the filibuster
2. Add extra states (at least DC & PR)
If they can't do this, then they will never solve their problem. Right now, their ceiling is 51 seats (probably more like 50 than 51), while the GOP's ceiling is 60 seats. Next time they are in power, they should do whatever they can to ensure that this changes. If they don't, they're signing their own death warrant.
I am part of the base of the Democrats...I feel terribly frustrated for the lack of open fights to STOP the disaster in Washington....I agree we need MORE STRONG COMBATIVE CENTRIST! We need to feel represented in our deep desire to stop the spiral of destruction of our democracy that the current administration is actively pursuing!
Don't know what would have happened in 2016, but Bernie has not focused on winning swing states or districts in the decade since. After the midterms, Our Revolution literally said "beating Republicans is not our priority". Which is fine as long as a mission goes for the Bernie movement, but then its difficult to hear him clearly about the prescription to win back red states when he isn't putting his own advice into practice. Most recently, he said that it'd be more effective to run Independents. Which is a fine strategy! But it is not the strategy for the Democratic Party itself.
imo a tired sore loser argument that Bernie Sanders does not ever endorse, to his credit, being man enough to accept that the voters rejected him.
Sanders lost because Democrats, and in particular African American Democrats who rarely choose the further left over the establishment Dem, don't like him.
Sanders outspent both Clinton and Biden, the latter by a large amount.
Yes, the pundits like James Carville spoke against him., Why not? People can say what they want. Are you suggesting that media or people cant have their opinions. I agree the DNC should not put their thumb on the scales, but they dont have that much power over voters who saw many debates and had a media campaign where Sanders outspent his opponents.
People didn't call the DNC for marching directions, they decided on what they saw and heard and Bernie's exposure was plentiful. If there is a beef about being ignored I would give it to Dean Phillips in 2024. Most elected Democrats dont like Sanders, nor do I for similar reasons, and they can express whatever they want.
I am MAGA? What do you base your psychic abilities on. I campaigned door to door and donated $300 for Harris. I donated several hundred to Welcome and to various Senators and Governors. All Democrats. I dont know what you are talking about. I'd even support Sanders against any MAGA candidate.
Stop with the ad hominem insults.
Why are you here other than to troll. This is Welcome, a group of moderate and conservative Dems. Why would you expect me to like Sanders on the further left. I dont spend my time on Bernie Sanders sites trolling the left.
You sound like a MAGA troll. Most people who supported Sanders actually believed that he would get a fair shake from the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party gave Clinton the questions ahead of time for the debate. That didn’t happen. Instead the liberal media called him names and made fun of him. I’m never going to vote for a Democrat again. I’m going to vote for an independent.
Finally someone speaks the truth. But we all are suffering because of the spineless Democrats. For generations my family has been loyal to the Democrats. Not anymore. They care about money far more than voters. I’m done with them and so are all 24 members of my family.
As a resident "brand guru" for whatever movement this is/becomes, I feel compelled to share that the term "centrist" in all forms should be expunged from the vernacular.
Centrism evokes an idea of compromising between two different strong ideologies to achieve pragmatic ends.
This is not the way to define a movement. Movements by their very nature are not ones of compromise -- they are ones of ideologies.
So a centrist movement ontologically actually cannot exist.
What we need is an ideology that is bound by the idea that desired outcomes are based on situational analysis of whatever problem we're aiming to solve.
Some problems may require progressive outcomes for long-term sustainability (i.e., energy policy/social inclusion), while others may require conservative outcomes for long-term sustainability (i.e., constitutional norms/immigration policy).
The ability to analyze each politically-charged item through a rational lens of pros/cons related to the desired ends I believe is the hidden ideology living within this idea of "centrism."
So, it's not centrism at all. It's something far more powerful, useful, and precise.
And if it's not centrism, then I'd suggest we retire the term and start labeling things more effectively so that this approach may gain more ground, faster.
Of course, this means we need a new label to replace centrism. I don't have that term just yet. But I'm happy to organize a workshop to help get us there. Just need the right folks.
It's an interesting challenge - active political people almost universally hate "moderate" and "centrist" etc (although should be noted its hard to totally dismiss a term like "moderate" that a plurality of voters give themselves). That's part of why we've boosted the framing of "Progressive Centrism" by Jared Golden, because political activists, etc need a more compelling frame that connotes something more specific. Not sure if we'll ever get to one specific term, but rather several different terms that in total are markers of Democrats that are currently described as centrist (not beholden to a strict left/right ideology, depolarizing, compromise legislatively, take pragmatic approach to both policy & politics, etc) but who may be more exciting than what "moderate" or "centrist" would connote.
I'll think hard about this. I think we need a unifying language even if it's a somewhat diverse cohort.
Abundance is probably one part of it
I am a centrist and do exist. Although it is true that my centrism could be called "compromising between two different strong ideologies to achieve pragmatic ends." which imo is just playing realpolitik and knowing that compromise works, I am mostly a centrist because I find that on any given issue there are valid points on the right and left and my opinion is usually an amalgam of that.
Take immigration. I am a grandchild of immigrants and think it is good for the country and support higher quotas, quicker family reunion. But I also believe in rule of law and that in a democratic society the majority gets to choose how and how many get admitted. I will try to convince my fellow citizens to allow more legal immigration, but I can't condone this notion on the left that if somebody enters illegally they have a right to stay here. And the politics of this are clear that it works for the GOP because by 60-40 voters trust the GOP more on immigration.
I truly believe that what keeps people polarized more is a blind allegiance to their ideological sides, where the reality is that a true focus on problem solving would bring in ideas from both the left and right.
I agree with how you approach your politics. I just think that using the existing ideologies as the grounding for the label for yours is limiting and constraining.
Perhaps, what would you suggest? I am a conservative Democrat. I support modest social welfarism including universal healthcare and strong environment protection, and more progressive taxation. But then I support a secure border, balanced budget, color blind policies. removal of homeless from public spaces, and strict rule of law whether rioters are on the left or right or shoplifters in CA.
I think regardless of the label, if you are running on the Dem side, it is hard not to suffer from the rather toxic brand that Democrats have developed, and the progressives will continue to do stuff that gives ammunition to FOX and Trump.
It wasn't a coincidence that Dan Osborne, who was the statewide candidate opposing a GOP incumbent (senator from NE) who most exceeded Harris' vote share, refused the Dem endorsement b/c he rightfully understood it would hurt him more than help him.
That is why I am leaning towards third party formation and started this New Democratic Party, fully aware that it will likely go nowhere, as did my Roy Cooper for President in 2024 but I am a fan of St. Jude the patron saint of lost causes : https://www.facebook.com/groups/1865832800920360
The other approach is that of Bernie Sanders, from the other side politically. He never joined the Democratic Party but almost won the primaries. I think I envision a political movement that would both seek Democratic nomination but also willing to run in areas where Dems have no chance as a third party like Osborne in NE.
It's a difficult place to be right now. But you'll be surprised how quickly the party's brand can evolve based on the nature, temperament, belief system and charisma of the presidential nominee.
Maybe and I hope so but I believe in Newton's law of politics that for each push in one political direction there is an equal and opposite reaction, so whatever the moderates can do, as Welcome is trying, to rebrand the party, the progressives will push the other way and I see it happening. The progressives are blaming the election debacle on not being left enough, odd considering that Harris was the third most progressive senator when in office (by Progressive Punch) and supported M4A, GND, reparations and the notorious Trump weaponized taxpayer funded transgender surgery for prisoners.
If Biden had moved center like Clinton instead of spending his time being the new FDR and having the most porous Southern Border in recent history he might have given Harris a better baton pass.
The only hope and a fairly reasonable chance is that Trump will self destruct and become less popular than the already unpopular Democrats.
Feels pretty wild to have "constitutional norms" listed in the "conservative" column right now.
Schumer is loathe to make tough trade-offs; and he's not very visionary.
For instance, he doesn't want to go hard anti-tariff (like trying to remove Trump's emergency trade powers, which the House Dems tried to do), because it would complicate his relationship with the industrial unions (I'm thinking of UAW here). Unfortunately, that kind of thinking also doesn't generate real innovation and out-of-the-box thinking -- like leveraging how tariffs hurts the Farm-States, which rely on export markets. Well, that puts Iowa, Kansas and perhaps others in the Farm Belt in play in 2026-- and you can see he has no game plan there.
Or another case in point, Alaska & Maine. Tariffs specifically on Canada are going to place enormous pressure on these border states -- Senator Schumer, there's an obvious opportunity to pick up votes here.
Are the 13 states that Democrats used to represent in the Senate the same that they should prioritize contesting in 2026 or 2028 or 2030 etc?
Good point that a new Dem strategy to win the Senate may include going on offense in different states than those they held in the 2010s. Yglesias gets into this a bit in his Bloomberg piece - it likely won't be a uniform centrism, but a flexibility to adapt in different states on different issues.
https://open.substack.com/pub/sharonlawrence/p/governing-issue-insights-political?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=a5esd
Problems the dems need to address
You need to have links to the previous and subsequent articles. I started in part 3, navigated to part 1, and am not sure if there's a part 4.
The discussion/search for party leadership, not House or Senate leadership may want to look to Maine and Gov. Janet Mills. She has recently deflated Trump by asserting that Maine would obey the law, apparently a “kick in the teeth” for the grabby president.
Fighting back (smart!) at every level worthwhile
I think the part that is missing in all these articles is how to resolve these issues in the long run. Democrats have a gigantic Senate disadvantage, which means that they have to moderate to ever win it again, sure, but which also means that they should have a plan ready for the next time that they have a trifecta. It should be clear enough by now that next time they have a trifecta, they must have the votes to:
1. Eliminate the filibuster
2. Add extra states (at least DC & PR)
If they can't do this, then they will never solve their problem. Right now, their ceiling is 51 seats (probably more like 50 than 51), while the GOP's ceiling is 60 seats. Next time they are in power, they should do whatever they can to ensure that this changes. If they don't, they're signing their own death warrant.
schumer is not the senate majority leader. is the error in the essay intentional?
thanks for catching! edited
I am part of the base of the Democrats...I feel terribly frustrated for the lack of open fights to STOP the disaster in Washington....I agree we need MORE STRONG COMBATIVE CENTRIST! We need to feel represented in our deep desire to stop the spiral of destruction of our democracy that the current administration is actively pursuing!
https://open.substack.com/pub/sharonlawrence/p/governing-put-pedal-to-the-metal?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=a5esd .. more of my advice. See my Substack for a lot More
Don't know what would have happened in 2016, but Bernie has not focused on winning swing states or districts in the decade since. After the midterms, Our Revolution literally said "beating Republicans is not our priority". Which is fine as long as a mission goes for the Bernie movement, but then its difficult to hear him clearly about the prescription to win back red states when he isn't putting his own advice into practice. Most recently, he said that it'd be more effective to run Independents. Which is a fine strategy! But it is not the strategy for the Democratic Party itself.
imo a tired sore loser argument that Bernie Sanders does not ever endorse, to his credit, being man enough to accept that the voters rejected him.
Sanders lost because Democrats, and in particular African American Democrats who rarely choose the further left over the establishment Dem, don't like him.
Sanders outspent both Clinton and Biden, the latter by a large amount.
Yes, the pundits like James Carville spoke against him., Why not? People can say what they want. Are you suggesting that media or people cant have their opinions. I agree the DNC should not put their thumb on the scales, but they dont have that much power over voters who saw many debates and had a media campaign where Sanders outspent his opponents.
People didn't call the DNC for marching directions, they decided on what they saw and heard and Bernie's exposure was plentiful. If there is a beef about being ignored I would give it to Dean Phillips in 2024. Most elected Democrats dont like Sanders, nor do I for similar reasons, and they can express whatever they want.
I am MAGA? What do you base your psychic abilities on. I campaigned door to door and donated $300 for Harris. I donated several hundred to Welcome and to various Senators and Governors. All Democrats. I dont know what you are talking about. I'd even support Sanders against any MAGA candidate.
Stop with the ad hominem insults.
Why are you here other than to troll. This is Welcome, a group of moderate and conservative Dems. Why would you expect me to like Sanders on the further left. I dont spend my time on Bernie Sanders sites trolling the left.
You sound like a MAGA troll. Most people who supported Sanders actually believed that he would get a fair shake from the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party gave Clinton the questions ahead of time for the debate. That didn’t happen. Instead the liberal media called him names and made fun of him. I’m never going to vote for a Democrat again. I’m going to vote for an independent.
I’m never going to vote for a Republican. Never.
Finally someone speaks the truth. But we all are suffering because of the spineless Democrats. For generations my family has been loyal to the Democrats. Not anymore. They care about money far more than voters. I’m done with them and so are all 24 members of my family.