The Sanity of Definition

Democrats need to get specific.

As the saying goes, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. The Democratic ecosystem lost in 2024 and has not yet recalibrated itself with the median voter. As the midterms approach, a change is needed: Democrats need to get specific about their policy proposals and why Independent voters should trust them to make the right choices when faced with tough decisions.

The Sanity of Definition

As Democrats look to regain favorability among voters, centrist Democrats in particular should embrace definition to restore sanity to Democratic politics, and reject the insanity of losing support for the same reasons we lost in 2016 and 2024.

All year I’ve mused that Democrats are either going to win on purpose in 2026, or by accident. Right now, the trends are still giving “by accident.” And the repercussions of that for the 2028 cycle could be devastating.

On a recent podcast episode, I told Amy McGrath about the Welcome team’s candidate meetings this year with Democrats running in conservative-leaning congressional districts in 2026. I’ve truthfully been slightly underwhelmed with 2026 candidates, frustrated that many of these candidates – who are required to win over swing and Republican voters to win – are still championing the resistance-type, Kumbaya rhetoric that doesn’t substantively differentiate from the current unpopular Democratic Party brand.

How do we expect to regain trust among voters if we’re doing the same thing as last cycle and cycles before?

A new Atlantic essay explores this profound contradiction within the Democratic Party ecosystem. While Democrats have largely agreed in the wake of the 2024 election that they need to moderate on policy to appeal to the median voter, very little moving to the center has actually occurred. Instead, we’re seeing Democrats continue to tip-toe around the specifics of what’s wrong, or cop-out with “we have to talk about the economy – not these cultural issues.”

Author

Marc Novicoff

writes,

But if you pay close attention to what these politicians say, you will struggle to find much evidence of them trying to stake out positions that might bring some of those blue-collar voters back into the fold.

[...]

The Democrats who complain most loudly about the need to fix the party’s brand aren’t trying anything this ambitious. Their efforts to appeal to moderates and conservatives tend to be uncontroversial, which might defeat the purpose. One recent Washington Post article compiled various recent “Sister Souljah moments” from Democratic politicians. It included, as a lead example, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro boasting that he’d legalized hunting on Sundays. No core constituency in the Democratic Party is outraged by the thought of hunting on Sundays, which is why you almost certainly heard nothing about Shapiro’s comment.

Novicoff further identifies a few problems:

By and large, however, even the elected Democrats most insistent on the need for change seem focused on adjustments to the party’s communication style, rather than to its substantive positions.

[...]

A related theory of rhetorical moderation is about emphasis, not word choice. Because Democrats are much closer to the median voter on bread-and-butter material issues than Republicans are, perhaps they just need to talk more about their popular economic ideas and less about their unpopular social-issue positions.

It’s a problem we’ve discussed before: the politics of evasion, and the courage gap.

Most Democrats are practicing the politics of evasion and refusing to identify specific policies where they disagree with their party. As Novicoff notes, most Democrats are relying on rhetoric, but voters want to see concrete policies and differentiation that aligns them with where voters are on the issues.

Democrats like Jared Golden, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, and Vicente Gonzalez have voting records that reflect true independence from the Democratic Party, and they dramatically out-perform as a result. They’re not just talking the talk; they’re walking the walk. Candidates who want to win need to be specific about their policy differences with the Democratic Party.

The Politics of Evasion

Shortly after the election, we wrote about the politics of evasion:

After a series of brutal defeats in which Democrats went 1 for 6 in presidential elections, Elaine Kamarck and Bill Galston wrote the seminal essay, Politics of Evasion in 1989. In it they argued:

Democrats have ignored their fundamental problems. Instead of facing reality, they have embraced the politics of evasion. They have focused on fundraising and technology, media and momentum, personality and tactics. Worse, they have manufactured excuses for their presidential disasters -- excuses built on faulty data and false assumptions, excuses designed to avoid tough questions. In place of reality they have offered wishful thinking; in place of analysis, myth.

Listening to the discourse concerning the future of the Democratic Party after the 2024 election cycle, it’s impossible to not see its relevance today.

This cycle we are seeing a plethora of examples of progressive Democrats shrouded in the “authenticity” they believe will make people like them more than Democrats in Congress. I’ve been calling it the “progressives in sheep’s clothing” phenomenon, where a “regular guy/gal” decides to run for office to prove that normal people can be Democrats, but they espouse the same positions as those who are in the progressive caucus and are notably disagreeable with median voter sympathy.

So they’re not actually normal, aka where the median voter is. And their candidacy will just further estrange moderate-to-conservative voters from our Party.

I tell people often that Welcome was founded in 2019 to cultivate a more welcoming Democratic Party that appeals to Republican and independent voters. But as of late, I often find that we are working to cultivate a more welcoming Democratic Party that ensures Democrats still feel welcome! Voters like myself who don’t identify as progressive and are people of color who still need a home in our politics.

So, where do we go from here?

It can feel awkward and even be intimidating to break with Democrats, but the failure to do so makes it harder to earn trust among voters. Democrats must reject the politics of evasion and embrace specificity in moderation. After all, moderates win, and before Democrats can govern, they must actually win elections. If progressives are going to attack moderates, they need to first address their own policy and messaging failures.

Nuance within the Democratic brand helps voters trust Democrats more: the more voters see Democrats who have diversity in thought, the more voters can believe Democrats when they say they’ll serve people over the Party. Without it, those claims are hollow. We must embrace the process of allowing policymakers to carve out their own approach to policy.

The Centrist Specificity Gap

Too often, centrist Democrats are amorphous blobs to voters. They lack definition and often espouse progressive policy that average voters don’t love.

Matthew Yglesias

calls the phenomenon “dog-whistle moderation.” The dog whistle approach antagonizes progressives without clearly communicating substantive agreement on anything to cross-pressured voters. He writes:

If people complain and you need an ally in the media to defend you and the idea of the big tent, send me a note and I will defend you. But it’s genuinely hard to defend people for hypothetical acts of heterodoxy.

And I find it striking and disturbing how few members of the Democratic Party actually do moderation instead of talking about it.

So how are “centrist” Democrats any different from progressive Democrats, who voters believe are more focused on the identity politics of the day and less on the problems they’re facing as Americans? People don’t trust double-mindedness and inauthenticity.

As Depolarizers guest Yair Zivan emphasized, definition in a centrist vision is imperative:

Centrism is not the middle point between two ever more extreme tribes on the left and right. Centrism sets the agenda that others must respond to, and so it becomes a driving focal point of politics… The problem with the middle is always that it shifts according to where the left, the right, or whichever groups in society are dominant are dragging the political discourse. And as one part of the map becomes more extreme…the middle gets dragged around with them. And so rather than creating an alternative, it actually just enhances the problem. [There’s] a difference between a middle point… and a political idea, which has its own core roots and positions and principles that you can rally around and which can set the tone of the political debate.

When voters go to the ballot box to elect representation every two, four, or six years, they’re voting not only for a vision but for an expectation of how that elected official will behave. One can generally anticipate how Republicans will act, but with Democrats who play hopscotch in ideology, things become a lot less predictable, and more volatile.

The beautiful thing about definition is voters may not agree with a candidate’s particular position, but they can at least better understand a candidate’s values and know they don’t lack in integrity.

Democratic candidates and elected officials are in tough situations concerning issues and solutions to those issues often. But what if those tough situations are the perfect opportunity for brand differentiation to achieve more electoral success as a faction and as a Party?

For a Party that champions its diversity, a multi-cycle lack of diversity and nuance in thought has bred illiberalism to devastating degrees.

In times of stress, you either default to your natural state, or you mature. It’s time for Democrats to show their evolution and maturation to voters.

Let’s institute productive litmus tests: Do candidates regularly prioritize their district over their party? Do they reject opportunities to use polarizing language? Do they offer a compelling centrist vision for the future – not just continue to blame Republicans for every problem?

Progressives aren’t the only ones who can do strategic conflict. Centrists can and should as well.

It’s time for Democrats to meet the moment and evolve accordingly.