Democrats are rightly going through a period of self-analysis after the recent election. While the results were somewhat mixed -- Hillary Clinton did get more than two million votes than Donald Trump, the Dems did pick up six Congressional and two Senate seats -- everyone agrees that the disappointing overall performance demands that the party make changes. But what changes?
Democrats have a wide range of views on why they lost. It's clear to them that Republicans appealed to people's fears, especially on issues of race, immigration, and the economy. They generally agree that it was a "change" election and that Hillary represented the political "establishment" Finally, there's a general sense that Democrats failed to address the concerns of white working-class voters in traditional "blue" states, including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Beyond that, the party is split. Convinced that he would have beaten Donald Trump, the Bernie Sanders wing of the party are convinced that it must move left, but it's hard to know what that means at this point. Free higher public education, of course. And universal health care, sure. But it's never been clear that promises to break up the banks and attacks on the 1% held great hope for creating jobs -- at least not as much as hope as Donald Trump offered.
In the first major battle for control of the party's direction, Ohio Representative Tim Ryan put up an impressive, albeit losing, challenge to Nancy Pelosi's leadership in the House. It's probably overstating it, but Ryan seems to represent those white working voters, while Pelosi comes from the urban "elite" wing of the party.
The next major battle will be for the leadership of the Democratic National Committee. Congressman Keith Ellison seems to be the front-runner. While he seems to be a good guy and represents the party well on television, it's not clear that a black Muslim with a full-time Congressional job is the ideal candidate to reach disaffected white voters. He speaks about creating jobs, but not how. He also focuses on promoting a progressive agenda and activating the party's "grass roots," which may be dissonant to white working class ears. Why would he be attractive to voters who voted on racial, anti-immigrant, and economic fears?
Ellison's main opponent seems to be Howard Dean, who already has a record of success in leading the Democratic Party, and in particular in promoting a 50-state strategy, something the Democrats need now more than ever. In opposing the war in Iraq, he was on the left of the party, but he seems to be regarded as part of the establishment these days.
Democrats shouldn't abandon their commitment to progressive policies. But they should remind that if the party keeps going left long it will eventually move in a circle. That's not a way to go forward.
These leadership positions do not definitively set the tone and policies for the future of the Democratic party, but they are significant. If Democrats want to take back Congress in 2018, they should consider where the votes are, and what it would take to win them over. The answer would seem to be in relatively conservative, economically depressed areas, that were once Democratic bastions but in recent year have obviously been voting for Republicans. It's not merely a question of left or right, progressive or establishment. Rather, they should be focusing on finding a practical approach that can win.
Democrats have a wide range of views on why they lost. It's clear to them that Republicans appealed to people's fears, especially on issues of race, immigration, and the economy. They generally agree that it was a "change" election and that Hillary represented the political "establishment" Finally, there's a general sense that Democrats failed to address the concerns of white working-class voters in traditional "blue" states, including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Beyond that, the party is split. Convinced that he would have beaten Donald Trump, the Bernie Sanders wing of the party are convinced that it must move left, but it's hard to know what that means at this point. Free higher public education, of course. And universal health care, sure. But it's never been clear that promises to break up the banks and attacks on the 1% held great hope for creating jobs -- at least not as much as hope as Donald Trump offered.
In the first major battle for control of the party's direction, Ohio Representative Tim Ryan put up an impressive, albeit losing, challenge to Nancy Pelosi's leadership in the House. It's probably overstating it, but Ryan seems to represent those white working voters, while Pelosi comes from the urban "elite" wing of the party.
The next major battle will be for the leadership of the Democratic National Committee. Congressman Keith Ellison seems to be the front-runner. While he seems to be a good guy and represents the party well on television, it's not clear that a black Muslim with a full-time Congressional job is the ideal candidate to reach disaffected white voters. He speaks about creating jobs, but not how. He also focuses on promoting a progressive agenda and activating the party's "grass roots," which may be dissonant to white working class ears. Why would he be attractive to voters who voted on racial, anti-immigrant, and economic fears?
Ellison's main opponent seems to be Howard Dean, who already has a record of success in leading the Democratic Party, and in particular in promoting a 50-state strategy, something the Democrats need now more than ever. In opposing the war in Iraq, he was on the left of the party, but he seems to be regarded as part of the establishment these days.
Democrats shouldn't abandon their commitment to progressive policies. But they should remind that if the party keeps going left long it will eventually move in a circle. That's not a way to go forward.
These leadership positions do not definitively set the tone and policies for the future of the Democratic party, but they are significant. If Democrats want to take back Congress in 2018, they should consider where the votes are, and what it would take to win them over. The answer would seem to be in relatively conservative, economically depressed areas, that were once Democratic bastions but in recent year have obviously been voting for Republicans. It's not merely a question of left or right, progressive or establishment. Rather, they should be focusing on finding a practical approach that can win.
RSS Feed