Saying No to 300 Musketeers
Learning from Trump, intersectional solidarity, and organizing with nuance
In the postmortem intra-party discourse, the concept that Democrats should become more moderate has become widely accepted.
This afternoon,
added another compelling frame to this view. In Democrats Will Not Win By Changing the Subject, he makes clear that breaking with progressive advocacy groups will be difficult:From the more centrist side of the party, there’s been a lot of talk over the last couple of weeks about the need to abandon “identity politics” and talk in a more plain manner … Dropping the “faculty lounge” rhetorical affectations is easy; AOC even took the pronouns out of her Twitter bio. The hard part is breaking with progressive activists substantively, on policy issues, where the party has gotten out of step with too much of the public.
The road ahead is rockier than just saying no. And it is more difficult than what the far left groups built up over the past decade. We have to organize around more nuanced issues than far left, without absolutist hashtags (or, as
points out, many overly simple cartoons).We need more Democratic leaders to step up to wrestle with the complexities on many issues, knowing they will get attacked from both left and right.
A growing number of Democrats acknowledge the value of moderation in the abstract. But few rushed to defend Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin when they stood up against the party on the filibuster, inflationary spending, and other policies where they were eventually proven right. Few called out Rep. Ro Khanna when he fundraised for their harassers.
Building up those defenses is essential, as we mentioned yesterday in Getting to No.
Because the progressive left is like the Three Musketeers, with the motto “All for one and one for all”. The Disney version lyrics go like this:
If you dare to
Cross our path, prepare to fall
'Cause we'll fight you
All for one and one for all
It feels like the progressive left has 300 Musketeers, ready to attack on any issue at any moment.
But while saying no to the groups is necessary, it is not sufficient. There seems to only be one way to be progressive - go 100% on 100% of issues. But there are many ways to be moderate. Pragmatic politicians will not all break with The Groups on the same issue, because of personal beliefs or dynamics in their districts.
What is offered instead will go along two tracks. The dual problems we outlined in Centrist School - of winning federal elections and making blue state governance better - may require different solutions in different situations.
But they both need more than just ‘No.’
Blue state governance will not get better just by saying no. The necessary entrepreneurial energy to strengthen the center-left won’t come just from saying no. Our first weekly post three years ago called for Organizing Popularism, and we aren’t going to organize just by saying “hey we’re not like them.”
We need inspiring factional themes like Abundance and the Rise of the Progressive Conservatives outlined by Jared Golden at WelcomeFest.
And we need to learn from Trump, because while the parties are not mirror images the benefits of moderating can also be seen on the right.
Learning From Trump
Donald Trump has constantly confounded mainstream political wisdom by being seen by voters as “moderate.” One explanation is that Trump has abandoned some unpopular positions Republicans once held, and that he has publicly rejected some of “The GOP Groups”.
When the extreme proposals of Project 2025 led to attacks on Trump, he wrote on Truth Social,
“I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.”
Can you imagine Kamala saying the same about the ACLU?
Trump was ruthless in his efforts to seize control of the Republican party platform, and didn’t worry about alienating the “The GOP Groups” on the issue of abortion:
The escalating behind-the-scenes disagreement over the abortion language has become so tense and acrimonious in recent weeks that some social conservative leaders have issued public warnings of a coming split within Trump’s coalition. Others have started to discuss an effort to issue a “minority report” to the platform at the convention, according to the people involved, who like others for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.
Trump advisers, in turn, have been angered by the public pressure from antiabortion activists, according to people familiar with the campaign’s internal discussions. At the same time, Trump allies are not overly worried about the platform skirmish, because evangelicals strongly opposed to abortion have remained among his most fervent supporters regardless of his evolving positions on the issue.
The reality is that American voters don’t like extremist activists, from either side.
It can be complicated. It won’t be the same for every successful moderate. And there will be attacks.
But bucking activists to win swing voters is a bipartisan opportunity.