One big problem with this view is that the parties are very different. Trump could successfully buck the GOPe because he is clearly a patriot who loves his country. He takes clear stances on big issues that appeal to majorities: deport illegals, two sexes, punish criminals, MAGA. In many ways he is to the right of his party establishment, and that appeals to lots of Republicans (and many swing voters and even some Democrats).
On the other hand, the Democrats have become an explicitly left-wing party. Being heterodox among them now means bucking the committed leftist ideologues, the entire “coalition of the fringes.” It means angering and alienating the trans lobby, the BLM types, the DSA, the no borders/no police groups, the SEIU, and other core groups. That would put the hypothetical heterodox Democrat closer to the political center, but it would fracture their party in much larger ways than Trump has fractured the GOP, and I doubt they’d pick up enough support from moderates to compensate for the loss of their left wing.
Until the Democrats start appealing to normal Americans I don't foresee lasting supermajorities. I live in CA, and I used to vote democrat. Even here, most people agree that Newson was too authortarian on covid . Parents are angry that their kids missed so much school and had to wear masks. Most people think taxes are too high. Most people don't want transgender curriculum materials in elementary school. The list goes on...
—Which Democrats have actually practiced heterodoxy?
If Bill Clinton in 1992 and RFK in 1968 are the best examples here, then this answer speaks for itself.
But closer to our moment, the best examples I can think of are Dean Phillips (who made the mistake of admitting Biden was too old to run but before the rest of the Party had given permission) and Seth Moulton, who made one comment about keeping boys out of girls' sports and essentially ended his career. They were publicly destroyed to set an example for anyone who might have considered doing something similar.
The Dems will not be moderating as long as Trump still roams the land, as his presence has driven them mad and made so many of their voters willing to burn down the whole country if it burns down Trump too. And then there's the total ideological capture of American liberalism and its surrender to Social Justice ideology, which is dogmatic, intolerant and intent on rooting out all dissent. Social Justice ideology is founded on the post-Marxist idea that Western liberal democracy and free markets are ipso facto evil and bigoted and need to be dismantled, with exile, cancellation or re-education the punishment for those who still support them.
What this means is that Social Justice ideology, which is a mandatory belief system for everyone on the Left side of the aisle, posits white male Christians and the country and institutions they created as enemies to be demonized and eradicated—and you can either actively hate people or campaign for their support and votes, but you can't do both.
> And then there's the total ideological capture of American liberalism and its surrender to Social Justice ideology
That capture happened in academia first, then spread to the journalists, the activists and finally PMCs. It began when radical leftists intellectuals fled for the US during WW2 when their post-Enlightenment world produced horrors.
I don't see how it's going to play out, but leftism as a moral and intellectual movement is already dead, it just doesn't know it yet. The only question is how it will die, how long it will take, and how much harm it will cause as it dies.
It also harkens back to a political climate that existed between about 1955 through 1995, and just isn't coming back. I was kinda surprised that Ruy seemed to think a two year supermajority was unusual. I linked a graphic below that illustrates the swings in the House, Senate, and Presidency since 1857. The period I called out above is an extreme anomaly in the regular swings in which party controls the majority of the Federal government every 8 to 12 years. What we've been seeing in swings of control since the GOP broke the Democrat hold on the House in 1994 was the norm prior to 1955.
Well said, Ruy. So far a lot of the heterodoxy on hot-button issues is quite tentative. I’ll go even further in the number of issues on which Democrats need to welcome non-progressive stances: the party needs to be okay with candidates who oppose assault weapons bans and favor parental consent laws for minors seeking abortion, if those candidates are the Dems’ best shot at winning in red places.
It's really refreshing to see someone comment on this blog about strategies for Democrats who actually addresses strategies for Democrats, Mr. Purzycki. Mr. Teixeira is a big-tent voice for the Party, but for reasons I can't fathom his blog seems almost solely to attract commenters who advocate opposing the Party's left wing and becoming MAGA-adjacent. I can't see how this helps create a community of Democrats or Independents focused on realistic ways to reconstruct the Democrats' big tent.
I agree with your point. The Democratic Party needs to be a place within which debates about hot-button issues can happen in good faith among members who share a vision that has identified the Party since the late 19th century, emphasizing the regulation of capitalism to preserve its energy, ensure it benefits society broadly, and guard against its tolerance of creating harm; working towards a true equal opportunity society (not equal results, but meaningful effort to sustain some level playing field standards); safeguarding the rights of individuals against both discrimination and government intrusion, recognizing that in practice this involves negotiating numerous conflicting forces; and securing American interests abroad through skillful diplomacy that allows us the luxury of preventing military entanglements through alliances and soft power.
I'm a liberal and my positions on guns and abortions are what you'd expect from someone on the Left. But I understand the complexity of Americans' attitude towards guns and I respect the sincerity of those who take a principled stand on the personhood of the unborn from conception on. And, of course, to pursue the central mission of the Party it has to win elections, and recognizing that in a big-tent party that means including members whose views represent constituents who do not agree with specific policies Party members generally support, but who share the larger vision. So I see your comment as completely constructive.
Going against orthodoxy carries an enormous price and no one the left wants to pay it.
Suppose Trump had said "Immigration built this country. We are a nation of immigrants. But we also need to secure the border and take illegal immigration more seriously." Then every Republican voter would know the deal: he's just another shill who will open the borders so Big Business can have their cheap labor.
Instead Trump descended an escalator and said "they're not sending their best."
He challenged orthodoxy and got called a racist (every left of center commentator here will agree it was racist). But that reaction also meant that Republicans could trust him on immigration.
No one on the left is going to do this. I've been waiting for Ezra Klein's very conspicuous silence on (trans)gender ideology to turn into a strongly-voiced criticism. I'm still waiting.
One big problem with this view is that the parties are very different. Trump could successfully buck the GOPe because he is clearly a patriot who loves his country. He takes clear stances on big issues that appeal to majorities: deport illegals, two sexes, punish criminals, MAGA. In many ways he is to the right of his party establishment, and that appeals to lots of Republicans (and many swing voters and even some Democrats).
On the other hand, the Democrats have become an explicitly left-wing party. Being heterodox among them now means bucking the committed leftist ideologues, the entire “coalition of the fringes.” It means angering and alienating the trans lobby, the BLM types, the DSA, the no borders/no police groups, the SEIU, and other core groups. That would put the hypothetical heterodox Democrat closer to the political center, but it would fracture their party in much larger ways than Trump has fractured the GOP, and I doubt they’d pick up enough support from moderates to compensate for the loss of their left wing.
Until the Democrats start appealing to normal Americans I don't foresee lasting supermajorities. I live in CA, and I used to vote democrat. Even here, most people agree that Newson was too authortarian on covid . Parents are angry that their kids missed so much school and had to wear masks. Most people think taxes are too high. Most people don't want transgender curriculum materials in elementary school. The list goes on...
—Which Democrats have actually practiced heterodoxy?
If Bill Clinton in 1992 and RFK in 1968 are the best examples here, then this answer speaks for itself.
But closer to our moment, the best examples I can think of are Dean Phillips (who made the mistake of admitting Biden was too old to run but before the rest of the Party had given permission) and Seth Moulton, who made one comment about keeping boys out of girls' sports and essentially ended his career. They were publicly destroyed to set an example for anyone who might have considered doing something similar.
The Dems will not be moderating as long as Trump still roams the land, as his presence has driven them mad and made so many of their voters willing to burn down the whole country if it burns down Trump too. And then there's the total ideological capture of American liberalism and its surrender to Social Justice ideology, which is dogmatic, intolerant and intent on rooting out all dissent. Social Justice ideology is founded on the post-Marxist idea that Western liberal democracy and free markets are ipso facto evil and bigoted and need to be dismantled, with exile, cancellation or re-education the punishment for those who still support them.
What this means is that Social Justice ideology, which is a mandatory belief system for everyone on the Left side of the aisle, posits white male Christians and the country and institutions they created as enemies to be demonized and eradicated—and you can either actively hate people or campaign for their support and votes, but you can't do both.
> And then there's the total ideological capture of American liberalism and its surrender to Social Justice ideology
That capture happened in academia first, then spread to the journalists, the activists and finally PMCs. It began when radical leftists intellectuals fled for the US during WW2 when their post-Enlightenment world produced horrors.
I don't see how it's going to play out, but leftism as a moral and intellectual movement is already dead, it just doesn't know it yet. The only question is how it will die, how long it will take, and how much harm it will cause as it dies.
The subtitle gives everything away. ALL democrats care about is POWER. Not policy, not improving the country. JUST POWER.
It also harkens back to a political climate that existed between about 1955 through 1995, and just isn't coming back. I was kinda surprised that Ruy seemed to think a two year supermajority was unusual. I linked a graphic below that illustrates the swings in the House, Senate, and Presidency since 1857. The period I called out above is an extreme anomaly in the regular swings in which party controls the majority of the Federal government every 8 to 12 years. What we've been seeing in swings of control since the GOP broke the Democrat hold on the House in 1994 was the norm prior to 1955.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses#/media/File:Combined--Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png
Well said, Ruy. So far a lot of the heterodoxy on hot-button issues is quite tentative. I’ll go even further in the number of issues on which Democrats need to welcome non-progressive stances: the party needs to be okay with candidates who oppose assault weapons bans and favor parental consent laws for minors seeking abortion, if those candidates are the Dems’ best shot at winning in red places.
It's really refreshing to see someone comment on this blog about strategies for Democrats who actually addresses strategies for Democrats, Mr. Purzycki. Mr. Teixeira is a big-tent voice for the Party, but for reasons I can't fathom his blog seems almost solely to attract commenters who advocate opposing the Party's left wing and becoming MAGA-adjacent. I can't see how this helps create a community of Democrats or Independents focused on realistic ways to reconstruct the Democrats' big tent.
I agree with your point. The Democratic Party needs to be a place within which debates about hot-button issues can happen in good faith among members who share a vision that has identified the Party since the late 19th century, emphasizing the regulation of capitalism to preserve its energy, ensure it benefits society broadly, and guard against its tolerance of creating harm; working towards a true equal opportunity society (not equal results, but meaningful effort to sustain some level playing field standards); safeguarding the rights of individuals against both discrimination and government intrusion, recognizing that in practice this involves negotiating numerous conflicting forces; and securing American interests abroad through skillful diplomacy that allows us the luxury of preventing military entanglements through alliances and soft power.
I'm a liberal and my positions on guns and abortions are what you'd expect from someone on the Left. But I understand the complexity of Americans' attitude towards guns and I respect the sincerity of those who take a principled stand on the personhood of the unborn from conception on. And, of course, to pursue the central mission of the Party it has to win elections, and recognizing that in a big-tent party that means including members whose views represent constituents who do not agree with specific policies Party members generally support, but who share the larger vision. So I see your comment as completely constructive.
Another 2 data points from Germany about trying to go down the middle. The Establishment lost to both Left and Right
Going against orthodoxy carries an enormous price and no one the left wants to pay it.
Suppose Trump had said "Immigration built this country. We are a nation of immigrants. But we also need to secure the border and take illegal immigration more seriously." Then every Republican voter would know the deal: he's just another shill who will open the borders so Big Business can have their cheap labor.
Instead Trump descended an escalator and said "they're not sending their best."
He challenged orthodoxy and got called a racist (every left of center commentator here will agree it was racist). But that reaction also meant that Republicans could trust him on immigration.
No one on the left is going to do this. I've been waiting for Ezra Klein's very conspicuous silence on (trans)gender ideology to turn into a strongly-voiced criticism. I'm still waiting.
Representing the people you were elected to represent wins elections--News at 11.