To regain their relevancy, Democrats need to go back to their evolutionary roots. Their clear priorities: faster economic growth and promoting upward mobility for the middle and working classes. All other issues—racial, feminine, even environmental—need to fit around this central objective. In survey after survey, economic issues such as unemployment, the economy, and the federal budget top the list of concerns while affirmative action, gay rights, and climate change barely register. [emphasis in original]They counter:
But on his main empirical point, that Democrats used to do better in elections back when their leaders didn't talk about race or gender or the environment, well, that's actually true, although probably not quite in the causal sense Kotkin seems to be implying. The Democratic Party of the mid-20th century was an historical anomaly. Thanks to the legacies of both the Civil War and the Great Depression, Democrats had an enormous and ultimately unsustainable coalition of both northern liberals and southern conservatives, integrationists and segregationists. Basically, a lot of poorer southern whites were still blaming Republicans for "northern aggression" in the 1860s and a dismal economic record in the 1920s and 30s. Democratic leaders tried to prolong this coalition as long as possible, largely by avoiding taking stances on civil rights. Ultimately, civil rights activism on the streets and in party conventions forced Democratic leaders to change their stances and actually begin advocating for civil rights laws, which is what finally drove most white southerners out of the party. You can chart a similar path by feminists and gay and lesbian activists to achieve the same ends in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s.
The decision for the party to confront environmental degradation, meanwhile, was one made over many decades by Hans Noel's ideological coalition merchants and party activists, who worked to make sure that only candidates who cared about these issues could become Democratic nominees. Mid-century Democratic leaders didn't bring up the issue because it just wasn't much of an issue yet, not because of some brilliant political tactic to keep their coalition large.Ok, so this is a tricky one. I've argued before that the identity politics driven party can't win Congress for any sustained period of town, but it's hard to argue with reality too- not only have Democrats won five of the last six popular votes for President, but more and more of those votes are coming from non-white voters. So how do you pull this whole thing apart?
I'll start with the passage from Kotkin, which I could almost agree with, but the reasoning is way too far of a leap. My argument that Democratic rhetoric should be much broader reaching is not because it's bad to speak to feminist needs, it's because things like equal pay for women are good for all of society. A better regulatory state, a more activist safety net, and more consumer protections are good for all people. Birth control for women covered on all health care plans is good for all of us- yes, even men. On pure policy, i'm arguing that our policies are right, and we should market them broadly because the results reach the entire working and middle class. Kotkin seems to be making the argument that taking on issues of Civil Rights or gender equality is a bad idea because it turns away white, working class voters. I guess my basic response to that is that, a.) our current voting block that has won five of the last six Presidential popular votes in this country are largely minorities, women, and the educated, so we owe them a platform that supports them, and b.) it's our job to do the sales pitch to the rest of America and bring them along on gender equality, LGBT rights, and civil rights. No, we shouldn't be the "black" party, but we certainly should stand up for minorities, and take our argument right out into "White America." We do represent the truest majority we can find, the winning side in the most attended elections.
As for Mischief's argument to counter Kotkin, I think it is correct, but leaves a bit lacking for me. Yes, Democrats did have an unsustainably large coalition in the mid-1900s, and that was bound to break, as it did. Democrats didn't get there entirely on luck though. A Democratic President won World War I, and two of them contributed in winning World War II, with one of them also leading us out of the Great Depression, creating Social Security and the WPA, while their later successors would give us our mandate to reach for the Moon, the Civil Rights Act, near universal voting rights, and of course, Medicare. All of this was during a period of Democratic domination in Congress. Oh, and all of this was happening in a period of time where the largest middle-class expansion in the history of the world happened, suburbia was born, the automobile became common-place, and so did the television. Yes, a Democratic Congress, which counted Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson as one of it's leaders, created the interstate highway system. The middle of the 20th century was a time of great success and prosperity for Americans, and Democrats were involved in nearly all of the achievements. Those achievements touched the lives of virtually everyone in the nation, mostly positively, and most of our current interest-groups did benefit too. Democrats didn't just stumble upon their success in the 20th Century, they went out and earned it.
So, I guess this begs the question, should Democrats engage in identity politics, a near constant source of debate within the party? I guess that depends on how you define "identity politics." If you are arguing Democrats should seek to protect the civil rights of minorities, women, and our LGBT brothers and sisters, I just see that argument as a non-starter. We're not going to abandon our defense of voting rights, or equal pay for women. We're not going to just concede that there's no issue to discuss when African-American men are hundreds of times more likely to be pulled over, or to be shot by a cop. I'm not sure there's even room for any discussion on some of these policy matters.
The other side of that is that there is a very broad prosperity agenda we need to argue for. The President could sign an executive order tomorrow returning overtime pay rules for working class Americans to 1990s or earlier levels. Expanding Social Security, raising the minimum wage, rebuilding our infrastructure, investing in alternative energies, and investing in our education system are all ideas with broad appeal, and broad reach to the public. These policies would help the broader public. They would be popular.
This isn't an "either or" thing. You can both argue for broad policy success, and argue for civil rights and our voters. I reject the argument that it's one or the other.
0 comments:
Post a Comment