John, I love reading your articles. Yo and the rest of the crew at TLP (most of them, at least) are the type of Democrats that could entice me back into the party of my youth. I hope your influence spreads. Your strength is being able to express a clear political vision, critical Democrats and Republicans alike, with no holds barred.
Which (you probably heard this coming from a long ways off) I was so mystified by your article above, Really? The Republicans are the party of hate, because they felt the 2020 election was stolen from them? I’m not suggesting vote fraud, but the media unabashedly rejecting objectivity in order to endorse Biden, the collusion between the government and social media to repress the Hunter Biden computer story… I don’t need to continue, you know the news better than I do. The 2020 election was a fair election only in the most technical sense.
Add to that the outpouring of hatred towards the Trump administration in 2016 which expressed itself in ways (again) that I needn’t detail. The aim and the effect was to hobble the Trump administration from carrying out its agenda, and in many ways it succeeded.
I might also suggest that the Democratic party might take more effective steps than to mimic MAGA populism in order to return to power. It might be an unreasonable hope (ok, it is an unreasonable hope, but it would be effective), but the Democrats could earn the trust and respect of the American electorate if they took an active hand in reforming those cultural and political institutions that are overwhelmingly populated by Democrats. If the leadership of the party stated that it is not in the interests of the United States that 90% of the federal bureaucracy were registered Democrats, nor that 90% of college professors either. They could follow that up by working together with Republicans to right the ship of state to a more equal balance. Many Americans who feel that the Democrats have a party similar in power to that of the Communist Party in Russia would celebrate a party that was willing to risk control in order to create a more perfect union.
Both parties are full of hate for the other side. It’s the driving emotional force of contemporary politics here and across the world unfortunately. My point is that Democrats have exhausted their hate — it doesn’t work as a political force — while Trump succeeded in harnessing his hate for his “political enemies” into a relatively coherent majority force. That’s all the guy talked about in rallies, appearances, social media posts. Conservative media is full of the same sentiments. It worked this time. Democrats of course are full of hate for Trump and his people as well but it doesn’t work the same way — it’s mostly annoying, excessively “woke”, and tied to false accusations of white supremacy and fascism that backfire. It sucks as politics. Democrats do much better when they are sunny optimists like FDR and Obama and when they put aside their hate to focus on common interests among working people. Anyway, thanks for reading and offering thoughts. Cheers!
I would agree that hatred exists on both sides. I think the problem Democrats have is that their hatred is expressed by media elites who are SO visible to the rest of the non-bubblesphere. Watch NBC's or CBS's election night coverage. It was shocking how hate-filled and biased these so called news people were. (I'm talking NBC, not MSNBC). Meanwhile there is a crazy man down the street here in Phoenix who seems so full of hatred for Biden and Harris that his front yard is out of space for all the hate flags he flies. So maybe a thousand of us in a small suburb near Phoenix see his hatred manifested, while millions see it exposed on NBC. ABC. CBS. Not to mention the visibility on social media of our own friends(?) who just hate Trump so much that they sacrifice their dignity daily to reminds us of it. Yes, haters on both sides, but one side does a way better job of manifesting its hatred in ways which are anathema to party building.
Yes, and too many analysts forego the intellectual rigor it takes to acknowledge and critique the current illiberal elements and behaviors poisoning both parties, because they somehow think it must be zero sum--i.e., criticizing 'woke' means you support the worst aspects of Trump, or criticizing the worst aspects of Trump means you support woke-ism. The truth is that for those who place the values of liberal nationalism above everything else, both are part of the same problem, and any effective effort at national leadership must recognize this. The Democratic party has always been at its best when it has striven to be the party of liberal nationalism and called for unity under its banner--mere partisan rancor isn't, and never has been, enough.
As you've pointed out, it's a lot easier for Trump to point out political enemies: they're the ones filing lawsuits and bringing charges against him, incessantly accusing him of racism and fascism, and wishing the guy in Butler was a better marksman. Trump's followers get much the same treatment from the same factions of the Democratic Party, which include the party's top leaders. It's easy as pie to convince voters that the Democratic Party as an institution hates them when its Presidential candidates call them deplorables, bitter clingers, and garbage. (Of course, those weren't expressions of hate, just deep disgust and condescension.)
On the other side, the hate is much more focused on the woke, the bureaucratic state, and arrogant politicians. The woke have the dirigiste tendency to label anyone who disagrees with any of their dogma as racist, phobic, retrograde Lumpenproletariat (see: Seth Moulton). They do not attempt to persuade the great unwashed of the correctness of their views; knowing them to be correct, they insist on imposing them on everyone. The response to COVID might have been a watershed in red-pilling a broad section of the electorate because it let the woke and the bureaucracy fully indulge their "shut up and comply" instincts; that approach helped turn unanswered questions into conspiracy theories, and it didn't help when the behavior and speech rules they imposed did not work as advertised to end the pandemic quickly.
Thus, many voters who the Democrats previously regarded as reliably non-deplorable defected to Trump in this election, with the Democratic Party post-election crying, "But we didn't mean YOU! You were good ones!"
(A note on Mr. Sunnyside, Barack Obama: one of his first acts on assuming the Presidency was to call an economic summit with Congressional leaders of both parties. The Republican caucus, led by John McCain, came to him with serious proposals for getting the economy moving, ones they could support on a bipartisan basis. Obama dismissed them out of hand, famously saying, "Elections have consequences, and to be clear, I won." His sunny optimism and reach-across-the-aisle attitude was purely for show during the campaign, and especially since this last election, you see his sour, dark side on full display. As someone recently said, "Obama cares as much for the future of the Democratic Party as you do about Rwandan scoccer.")
I strongly agree, that even though Covid was not a top issue in this campaign, it was the Democrats’ Waterloo. When they flipped on a dime to using all of the tactics of the “social justice warriors” against people who questioned masks, vaccines, and the Wuhan lab, while putting millions of people out of work through government edict, they lost millions of people. Many fled blue states for red ones (Joe Rogan being a major one). They cheered on riots while law abiding citizens were confined to their homes, and their elites went to parties without masks. And perhaps most significantly, they destroyed the core religious dogma of Progressivism, which they had used to cudgel their enemies for years: “Trust The Science”. Haven’t heard that phrase in a while, have you? Not since Fauci declared, “I am the science”. The entire facade of Progressivism collapsed. Their moral certitude was borrowed from science and technology, which the flimsier, radical academic fields that spawned DEI piggybacked on. That is the left’s basis for sneering at “deplorables”. To them, Critical Theory and postmodernism are just as “scientific” as physics.
And it’s all gone. A house of cards that went bankrupt slowly, and then all at once. They did it to themselves, and Covid was the point where it all collapsed. The Emperor lost his new clothes, the curtain was pulled back on the Wizard of Oz.
"Trust the Science" is one of the most invidious phrases, used in the way Progressives use it. Science is a process of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and refining one's knowledge based on data. Unfortunately, the Progressives turned "Trust the Science" into "Trust the Consensus" or, aa in your Fauci example, "Trust Me." They put forward science as a body of dogma that cannot be questioned and needs no further data to test and update it. It was true of COVID and it's true of climate science.
There is no simple solution for the Democrats. They are caught in a realignment that they themselves have forced, over the course of decades. The coalition of non-Democrats is now a majority. It goes back as far as the 1960s, when the cultural radicals began to take over, which led to Republicans holding the presidency for 20 out of 24 years, in multiple landslides. Clinton corrected for that by moving the Democrats fully on board with corporate interests, most importantly globalization. That started the shift of affluent college graduates to the Democrats, as the colleges continued to move left on social issues. Obama was the culmination of that agenda, a college radical who was pragmatic enough, and ambitious enough, to know that he needed to spout vague platitudes and present the right virtue signal for those white college graduates and corporate types, while determinedly pressing his ideological agenda through the institutions. It is not some kind of accident or coincidence that Obama's presidency produced the domination of the radical identity left. A simple review of Obama's life shows clearly that that is who he is. It wasn't a bug, it was a feature, that Obama's legacy is "wokeness". That is his ideology.
So if Democrats think Obama is their guide, they have no hope. His success is what has doomed them. The "image" of Obama and the reality of Obama are two different things. And like the Wizard of Oz, his curtain has fallen. It is thanks to him that they are now the party of the elite, across the board. Government, universities, corporations and the corporate media, are all now dominated by the left. They are the party of the rich, in fact and in deed. They are "the powerful". They are the ruling class. They are the oligarchs. The only way they could get on the side of the people is to abandon everything they are, because they are who the people are uniting against. The only people who haven't abandoned the Democrats are people who only care about the social issues, first and last. "Wokeness" is their religion. So the Democrats have to abandon both their base and their donors to fix what's wrong with them. That's a heavy lift.
This is not the typical back and forth that happens every two or four years, requiring minor adjustments. This is a realignment in motion, and 2024 (not 2016) is a tipping point equivalent to 1980. The next Republican win will likely be by a bigger margin, not a smaller one.
Yes, I think you are right. FDR and Obama gave people something to be excited about, which in the end can be more important than policies. Harris couldn't capitalize on her vibes because there just didn't seem to be enough "there" there. Though objectionable in so many ways, I think a lot of people voted for Trump not for his hate, but because they became excited about the future (a horrible thing to say, I know, about one's political nemesis). There is no doubt that his courage after being shot was a tipping point, but no less were the endorsements of some of the most fertile minds of Silicon Valley. It engaged people's imagination for a vibrant America.
Democrats can do that, and I think even better. A vision for a better America, in addition to emphasizing infrastructure, technology, education, and human services, should also reflect fairness (values) and transparency (open discussion). When I was younger, I always believed that the Democratic Party led by example. We believed in open discussion, not censorship. We believed in the rights the individual, not a government controlled press (or nowadays, social media) or a politicized FBI.
We were out-visioned in the last election, and that is inexcusable. As I wrote above, we should be taking the lead in correcting the political inequities that define our government and educational institutions, even if it means losing control of our present bastions of power. We just learned how vulnerable those bastions are. We should stop with this self defeating Resistance and work for a better America. Yes, together with Republicans. We need not fear them. If we believe in our own vision and show that we are willing to sacrifice for it, America will join us.
I appreciate what you’re saying, but I also believe it is impossible for the Democrats to do that at any point in the near future. It took 24 years of repudiation for them to truly change direction with Clinton. And the Clintons are now part of their problems. I don’t know if they’ll be totally boxed out of the presidency for decades, but the larger, generational tide is against them. They have reached the full expression of their current ideology from 2008-2024, and it is a disaster. They will not be given that much power again for a long time.
The real pathology that has developed is a core inability to compromise or relent, and when they are rebuked, they double down. This is a cultural phenomenon within the Democratic Party that comes from being completely captured by the far left. They must signal their ideological purity by only ever getting more extreme, and by opposing everything their enemies do, no matter what. Even when it means completely contradicting themselves. It has obvious precedents under Communist dictatorships. “Cancel culture” is not a new phenomenon, it is the standard operating procedure of Communist regimes, the Stasi, the Gulag, the Cultural Revolution. Ideological purity and the paranoid ratting out of “counter revolutionaries” is the game. The Democrats have a Red Guard that they have lost control of. They have made alliance with, and captured, economic elites by staying confined to social issues, where there has been no limiting principle. But as the corporations begin to defect, starting with people like Elon Musk, they are losing the real source of their power.
That calculation that started with Clinton, of being “economically conservative and culturally liberal”, in the most general sense, has been destroyed by going off the deep end culturally, while abandoning the working class to the maw of globalization.
Good points. But why are so many Govt workers dems? Because the GOP has railed against Govt for decades (Reagan, Govt isn't the solution but the problem). Dems believe Govt can help people while the GOP wants to drown it in a bathtub. Why would a gop voter want to work there? 🤔
Another Make the Democratic Party Great Again article. I hope you succeed because politics would be less crazy but you are mimicking and in some cases expanding what is going on in the Republican Party. Trump is a reaction to similar out of touch elites in the Republican party-the supporters of corporate welfare, forever wars, open borders and subordination of American interests to every globalist scheme that comes along. Mitt Romney was the perfect avatar of this sort of Republican. Trump has, for the time being, defeated them at the Presidential level but the struggle continues. I think your policy objectives would be better met by populist fusion than by partisanship.
A good start would be some Democratic support for the Gabbard nomination. She was a Democrat until quite recently and I suppose there is a lot of resentment for her defection as well as her demolition of Harris in the 2020 primary. However, she is were she is due to her opposition to the forever wars, which she has seen personally. As I noted above, there are still Republicans, especially in the Senate who are cheerleaders for forever wars. Put that together with solid partisan opposition from Democrats and she is in jeopardy. Do the Democrats really want to be branded as the war party? My initial affiliation with the Democratic party was mainly because they were anti-war. First the dissidents and eventually, the mainstream.
Excellent article—some of the most spot-on analysis I’ve read here at TLP, both in terms in summarizing the internal dynamics of the party and its relationship to the opposition and Trump, and in terms of concrete suggestions for reform. Wish I could pin it to the top of every Congressional Democrat’s inbox.
This is your first priority. There's no use plastering talking points all over the place in front of people who are inherently opposed to rocking the boat.
I'm fascinated by the endless repetition of the term "working people". Who do Democrats imagine those people are? In my experience, they are professionals like doctors, lawyers, teachers, professors, entrepreneurs, as well as small business owners that support larger entities. They are all people who work, and are apparently not included in the present Party's appeal.
So? Is this an admission that their Party speaks only to those elites who are not " working"? Why would any actually operational enterprise recruit lazy, useless effetes? But it appears that this was Democrats' targeted choice for membership. And they wonder why they lost? They should be way further buried in their enchanted forests of walled castles than they are. And hopefully, will become. They are annoying, irritating, entitled potentates in a land of make believe.
Just begone. You're in the way of those who actually do work, to make things work, for the rest of us. You know, the irredeemables, the deplorables, the ordinary people, the non-urban folks, moms, dads, fly-overs, ie., proud Americans.
That "the Party" needs to remake itself is mind boggling. How do you plan to engineer a different foundation? Fake it? Lie? Pretend? The jig is up, guys. Being even more fraudulent and hypocritical isn't going to work. We know who you are. Begone.
"Democrats cannot mimic what Trump did after his loss in 2020 and expect to win the allegiance of more voters in the future."
The Democrats with their dishonest media bullhorn lie to themselves until they believe their lies and this is their primary problem.
They barely won in 2020 with a large pile of election shenanigans that were enabled by the global pandemic. They then ran around telling themselves that they won because they were more popular... and just failed to accept that, no, their ideas and behavior was NOT popular and without all that mail in balloting advantage, they would have lost.
The Democrats biased media is their downfall as well as their ideology that attacks and cancels criticism. They are living in a bubble of zero self-awareness that they need to change and reform.
Resistance will not get it done. That was proven with the historical comeback of Trump in consideration of the full on media and Democrat project to destroy his brand.
Very insightful and extremely accurate. Fortunately, They’re already is a party that has most of these features and ideals It’s called the Republicans. What do you call a Democratic Classic Liberal….a current Republican. All of our policy should be designed for people that make 100 grand a year. That means the middle class. Not sure I have the time or patience to try to reform the Democrats when they’re already a party to choose from
I agree that the Dems can't hate and win mostly because it devolves into not being curious about why the other side voted the way they did. It is easier to yell racist! Than actually attempt to listen to why they voted Trump.
For me much of reasons why come down to the massive misinformation machine on the right that makes sure a lie gets around the world while the truth is putting on it's shoes (summary twain).
In almost all the reporting I've seen with Trump voters their reasons to vote for him are based on misinformation.
Before cable and the internet we had a shared fact base with the mainstream media. No longer.
So how do dems get facts and their ideas into the right wing ecosystem?
Misinformation like once you get the vaccine you can't spread covid? Misinformation like children can't go to school because it isn't safe? Misinformation like wearing a Snoopy mask will stop the spread? Misinformation like the DOJ wasn't laser-focused on conservatives? Misinformation like Comey setting up Trump and Strzok receiving $1.2M settlement and cable news contract? Misinformation like the '51' intelligence officials meddling in the election? Misinformation about Russia collusion (which Dems are still peddling to this very day!)? (Read Matt Taibbi's latest article on the devasting consequences of that were to hard-working Americans.) Yeah, keep blaming the stupid voters.
Completely serious question. Do Dems who really believe, the worst inflation in 40 years and 10 million unvetted migrants roaming the US, are "misinformation"? Ditto, for the largest gap between US median wages and US median home prices, in history?
Misinformation is not the problem. Horrendous policies, that beget even worse outcomes, for Working and Middle class America, are the problem. There is no rightwing echo system. And if there were, no one in the Working or Middle Class, would have time for it.
Parents working 3 jobs between them, deciding between gas and groceries, while constantly monitoring their checking account balances, do not give a flying fig about anyone's "ecosystem". They are racing between basketball and piano lessons, while attempting to return home, in time to meet the dryer repairman.
They want to be able to afford summer day camp. They want to be able to take a walk after dinner, in a safe neighborhood. They do not want teacher time, in already failing public schools, to be eaten up by new arrivals, speaking 4 different languages.
In short, they want the lives they had, before Biden walked into the WH.
Yes but everybody--even many, if not most, parents working 3 jobs--uses social media, and there is a vast ecosystem of right-wing outlets (tv stations and media corporations like Fox News, the outlets of the One America News Network, the Sinclair family of news stations and publications) that propagate misinformation via social media platforms. This misinformation then comes to dominate the newsfeeds of many individuals by leveraging viral techniques, and due to the design of social media platforms' algorithms--which is to get as much attention as quickly as possible. Attention is generated quickest by content that instills people with fear, paranoia, and anger, regardless of truth value. This is how so many people fall down the right-wing "internet rabbit hole" just by getting their news from Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.
This distorts the context of the phenomena you mentioned. Though the problems of inflation and illegal immigration are real, the right-wing media portrays them in exaggerated and *unreal* ways. To take one example, it is why you had large numbers of people in Wisconsin complaining that illegal migrants were taking their jobs, when the migrant population in Wisconsin is vanishingly small and could not possibly have any effects on the labor market. Biden's border policies were a legitimate problem--but not to the extent that people crossing the border were showing up en masse in the Frostbelt or the Northeast and disrupting the labor market there.
Or take inflation--its primary cause was scrambled supply chains meeting the pent-up demand unleashed by the end of the lockdowns. Inflation happened all over the globe, in both conservative and liberal policy regimes--and it was *lowest* in the United States. (the dollar also went *up* in value during Biden's term) It didn't spring up in response to Biden's policies; but, again, the right-wing media system amplified and spread, very effectively, the narrative that it did, draining the issue of its context.
Democrats must confront and address all the issues that Mr. Halpin mentioned above--they are real, and a huge part of the party's political problems. But it is *also* true that they must develop effective measures to fight against the sea of right-wing misinformation that has swept the nation and the world, because it is also very real.
Immigration was not a large issue for the majority of Dems. Most migrants do not dwell, dine or shop in upper middle class, Blue enclaves. In fact, the human tsunami, lowered the cost of migrant Domestics, that serve the the US Upper Middle and Ruling Classes.
As a result of their own limited experience, many Dems wrongly presumed immigration was of limited importance, especially in Swing States. Dems attributed the problem to messaging. Sparsely educated and unsophisticated voters, too easily swayed by "misinformation", did realize realize the exaggeration.
Firstly, it is impossible to calculate how many migrants reside in Wisconsin, or anywhere else. Along with the 8 million, processed, nearly 2 million nameless Gotaways, roam the US. Border surveillance shows them entering the US, but no one knows where, they currently dwell. Even the NYT recently admitted, migrant numbers are, generally, woefully underreported.
Moreover, if an unlicensed migrant contractor, with a migrant crew, wins a job in Wisconsin, that would have otherwise been awarded to American workers, the American jobs lost, will never appear statistically, but the Americans who lost work, certainly understand who, replaced them.
Ditto for their friends, family, and fellow congregants. Their Knights of Columbus brothers and Lodge members, also know. The owner of their favorite restaurant, also understands why regular customers, now dine out less often. Likewise, for the owner of the bowling alley, the worker formerly frequented. It is clear, just a few job losses, can generate a large impact on community voting.
The children of Wisconsin voters, overwhelmingly, attend public schools. Just a few migrant arrivals, often lacking English skills, or any prior formal education, require the bulk of teacher time. Placed mainly by age, migrant students are often, academically, years behind their classmates.
The marked change in the classroom is pronounced, unavoidable, and rarely positive. Parents understand, and vote accordingly. Dem leaders, whose own children are, overwhelmingly, privately educated, underestimated the impending backlash, only a few students can generate.
Dems continue to insist the US has the best economy in the world, and by certain standards, they are correct. Few in the Middle and Working Class care. They care their living standards became, and remain, markedly worse, under Biden.
On the the other hand, the top quintile of earners have enjoyed, soaring asset prices. Not only have they barely noticed inflation, many take great pride in the insane prices. A $500K living room, only, remodel was once unthinkable, even for the US wealthy. Now such projects have their own regular section, in the WSJ.
The unexpected windfalls, caused Dems to greatly under appreciate the pain Dem economic policy, inflicted on the majority of the country. Inexplicably, most Dems could not even feign sympathy for Americans, suffering the worst inflation in 40 years.
Instead, Dems spent a year lecturing Americans, the US economy was the strongest in the world. US voters were simply too stupid, to appreciate their good fortune. Upon neutral review, the Harris loss, should not be surprising, nor was it caused by misinformation.
And, indeed, the Dems *did* make a mistake in not paying more attention to the immigration issue, because it created issues in the border states and to some degree adjacent states, and made them look incompetent. No argument there.
That is approximately 1.2% of the total population of Wisconsin. Which means, like I said, that the average Wisconsinite is highly unlikely to ever encounter a member of this group. If every member of it went into the work force (which is *extremely* unlikely), they would compose 2% of said labor force. (going off the BLS's estimates: https://dwd.wisconsin.gov/workforce-solutions/wai/labor-market-brief.htm) That is not remotely enough to cause any kind of serious disruption--yet a large proportion of those who voted for Trump in Wisconsin and other Midwestern states listed it as their #1 issue, as if there was some kind of crisis going on there. And that is because the narrative of a 'migrant wave' in the state (which, by the numbers, was clearly not happening, and thus can be fairly characterized as misinformation) was very effectively propagated via social media--and the outlets pushing that narrative were the various aforementioned right-wing outlets.
And certainly no one can deny that the working and middle class have struggled with inflation the past few years--I never said they didn't. I 100% agree that Biden should have also done a better job of recognizing and focusing on their struggles, rather than trying to 'sell' the economy as 'better than you think'. But the narrative that inflation was uniquely bad in the US, and that this uniquely bad inflation was a localized effect of Biden's policies, is a false one, and one that was effectively amplified via the aforementioned ecosystem.
So, again, while it is absolutely fair to say the Democrats made big messaging errors, and have all sorts of internal problems that continue to thwart their success (many of which are articulated very well in this article), it is *also* entirely accurate to say that they also have to fight against a large disinformation system that works on behalf of the right, and compounds the effects of their messaging mistakes. Both can be (and are) true, and both should be acknowledged and addressed if the Dems want to be competitive again.
Am going to guess, you have limited experience with small towns and rural, Midwest living. The above premise attempts to link the percentage of the migrant population, directly to percentage of voters, spurred by immigration.
I believe you are missing my point. A Wisconsin Lodge of 300 members, needn't experience 300 job losses, for the vast majority of the Lodge members, to vote to limit immigration. The loss of livelihood by 1 Lodge family, to a migrant, may not be deemed a "serious disruption" to you, but it is a safe bet most Lodge families, will see it as one. As a result, many will vote to curtail migration. Ditto for the Knights of Columbus, Rotary Club, th ladies Aux, and the local book, bunko and pickle ball clubs. . .
Likewise, if only 2 grades in a small school are negatively affected by the arrival of migrant students, it should not be a surprise, the majority of school parents, many whose children will never encounter a migrant directly, will vote for less immigration, based on the "disruption" of the 2 grades.
While it is a shock many urban dwellers, Midwest and small town dwellers, tend to stick together. They needn't personally experience job loss, or a loss of teacher time to migrants, to realize someone, similarly situated, in their orbit, has endured it. That is neither the result of Fox News poisoning, nor omnipresent, mythical misinformation. It is concern and empathy for friends, neighbors and those similarly situated, engrained in the culture.
Dems can keep informing voters the migrant wave was vastly overstated by social media, but they should not be surprised if the tactic doesn't work.
Actually I have a decent amount of experience with both, and I also think you are correct that 'organic' social networks transmit social anxieties beyond individual interactions; however, it is extremely dubious that those sorts of network effects alone could make marginal changes in a group of 70,000 people one of the top concerns of around 1.5 million people. If they were that powerful on their own, you would see them produce similar shifts in concern for other issues when there are significant developments related to said issues. For example, the size of the 'unauthorized' population grew by only a very small amount in Wisconsin from 2016-2022, while the number of deaths from heart failure increased by around 11.5%--a much more significant amount of growth. (https://usafacts.org/answers/what-are-the-leading-causes-of-death-in-the-us/state/wisconsin/) Yet those voters that voted for Republican candidates in 2022 still listed immigration higher on their list of top issues than healthcare, the subject which those network effects would have, in theory, pushed them to prioritize more, given that there were significant negative changes in the quality of people's health, but negligible negative changes in the size of the undocumented population.
This disparity makes sense, however, when you account for the fact that the 'migrant crisis' narrative was what was propagated most effectively on social media by the outlets I mentioned, not the subject of healthcare.
Even if we disagree on this matter, though, it looks like we at least agree on one thing, which is that telling voters they are being duped by social media using the existing media ecosystem probably won't help the Dems that much. IMO, they will need to invest more in the growth of their own, countervailing media ecosystem, and will need to figure out a way to more effectively work within the algorithmically-governed infoscape of the major social media platforms, most crucially by improving their ability to leverage these platforms' virality-driven dynamics. Right now, the rightwing media outlets are more adept at the latter--and, however much of an illiberal, narcissistic grifter Trump may be, there can be no doubt that he is *especially* gifted at it.
Democrats have a trust problem. I have searched for a reasonable, centrist Democrat to support in my area in Eastern Washington as the state government is solidly Democrat and that doesn't look to change soon. I thought that perhaps by supporting moderate Democrats we could edge the party back towards sanity. No joy - every candidate I've investigated and interacted with will talk a good game in generalities but then when pushed for specific stances on things like taxes, "gender affirming care" for minors, DEI, supporting the Washington state constitution on gun rights - crickets. They have given me no reason to believe that if they get to Olympia they would be anything other than a Democrat cipher, voting the progressive party line. I don't trust them to actually put their votes where their mouths are.
"You can’t build a majoritarian party in touch with working people if your current party is entirely run and represented by out-of-the-mainstream cultural elites and college-educated weirdos."
I don't think you will be able to dislodge the weirdos. They are much more committed and energetic than the normies in the Democratic Party. They certainly won't agree to damp down their cultural causes in the name of electoral politics, because they would view that as self-betrayal of their holy crusade(s).
You also have the problem of the capital-S Socialists. Bernie Sanders may talk about putting working-class economics ahead of cultural crusades, but his flavor of working-class economics he learned from Castro and Chavez.
I expect that to build a majoritarian party of addition, you are going to have to engage in some political subtraction. You are going to have to tell the cultural and economic radicals to hive off into their own party and formally disunite with the Democratic Socialists.
Then your only challenge will be how to convince voters in the middle that the reformed Democratic Party is better at doing patriotism, normalcy, and economic growth with low taxation than the Trump-led Republican Party.
It sounds to me that you are convinced that the Trump GOP is right about everything. If so, why should the Democrats bother to continue to exist? It would seem that in your world the proper role of Democrats would be to retire from politics.
The proper role for Democrats is to figure out what they stand for, what they SHOULD stand for, and how to represent those things in policy and practice. I note that this substack believes that the Democrats should stand for economic opportunity and prosperity for the working class, American civic pride, public safety, a strong but not highly activist national defense, and common values that respect the rights of minorities without putting those rights above the rights of everyone else. (If I got any of this wrong, please correct me.)
My view is that all of those things are being represented now by the Trump-reformed Republican Party. Thus, the challenge for the Democrats is to come up with policies and a rationale that convinces both themselves and the electorate that they can represent those goals and values better than the Republicans can. One challenge the Democrats face is that the Democratic Socialists are licking their chops at the prospect of taking over the Democratic Party and cementing their priorities in place. The history of such Left-radical movements suggests that they will then purge the party of its moderates - and then you may find your only politically effective home will be in the neopopulist Republican Party.
I would love to hear any alternative perspectives.
Thank you for responding and clarifying your views and for recognizing the SHOULD might mean something different from doing whatever is mos likely to win the next election. It seems, though, that you believe that there is really no way that the Democrats could currently improve on the Trump -reformed Republican party. If that's the case, it would seem the Democrats should just lay low until such time as Trump dies and Republican leaders diverge from the path blazed by Trump. Sort of like the minority parties do under Putin.
Well, the first step still remains: instead of focusing on why they lost the 2024 election and how they can win in the 2026 midterms and in 2028, the Democratic Party needs to figure out what they currently stand for - across all their factions - and what they SHOULD stand for as a common set of values all the factions can share. I am personally skeptical that all of the parts of the Democratic Party can agree on one common set of values, and I think at this point the Progressive wing will be unwilling to paper over its difference with the rest of the party because they feel they've done that over and over and the results have been poor, not to mention not advancing their Progressive agenda.
You are probably right about the Progressives. I am a moderate Democrat. I believe in a strong safety net, a fair tax system, environmental protection and a foreign policy that does not "beggar they neighbor" or work to establish tyranny abroad, in short, an FDR/Obama Dem. The Progressive cultural agenda on sex and race I could do without but I don't want to encourage the people who are big on that stuff to stay home in 2026 and 2028. Sounds like the best thing to do is wait for the GOP to screw up, which, if history serves as a guide, will probably happen soon. On the other hand, if contrary to my expectation, the new administration brings peace and prosperity to the world, I will admit the error of my past votes and not worry about politics anymore.
Wait for the Republicans to fuck up worked just fine in 1932, 1976, 1992, 2008 and 2020. Based on history, there is a very good chance that in 2029 people will be writing on whether the GOP can possibly survive after the 2026 recession and getting only 46% of the vote in 2028. And that will be nonsense as is much of what has been written here.
There are some good points here but the extent of the loss is exaggerated. Trump barely won. The implication of this is that the Democrats can't completely abandon the "completely out of touch" positions that 47% of the voters voted for without losing money, enthusiasm and votes. It is correct, however, that the Democrats will never control he Senate again until they can get votes outside the big cities. I'd really like to hear more details about what the Democrats should do to help themselves and the country rather than harping on the faults of the so called "elites" (that apparently reliably control over 45% of the vote, a pretty big sect).
This hits a lot of nails on the head and sounds like a plan. An easy way to reinforce the emphasis on American values and defuse hostility toward Republicans would be to embrace the way Dr. King and his allies appealed to a patriotism rooted in the nation’s defining ideals.
We often forget that until Vietnam, the political thrust of American patriotism was mostly progressive - in the sense of progress toward the realization of our ideals.
In my own work against money in politics I find this is a unifying message with considerable emotional resonance.
# 1 is the biggest challenge. good luck on that. Also quit calling the Democrat Party ‘Democratic’ Party. Its recent past has not been democratic and I beleive it was initially founded as the Democrat Party.
Pretty good article except one comment, do you really want to label all college educated as "weirdos", are we really ready to ditch college educated as useful citizens? Are you college educated? and are you therefore a weirdo? Are all rich people and lawyers to be thrown under the bus? Are they also not useful citizens who are worthy of an opinion or of value?
That's mentioned in the context of the strange cultural left ideas emanating from party elites who are uniformly college-educated. Plenty of normal people are college-educated, but they don't run the Democratic Party. As far as the rich and lawyers go -- more power to them but there are more than enough of them running for office and directing the party.
You might clarify what is "normal" in the future. White, heterosexuals making between 50K and 250K ?
Also, Trump, Musk and the My Pillow guy are not exactly "normal" either (nor was FDR for that matter) but somehow those guys (narrowly) won the last election.
John, I love reading your articles. Yo and the rest of the crew at TLP (most of them, at least) are the type of Democrats that could entice me back into the party of my youth. I hope your influence spreads. Your strength is being able to express a clear political vision, critical Democrats and Republicans alike, with no holds barred.
Which (you probably heard this coming from a long ways off) I was so mystified by your article above, Really? The Republicans are the party of hate, because they felt the 2020 election was stolen from them? I’m not suggesting vote fraud, but the media unabashedly rejecting objectivity in order to endorse Biden, the collusion between the government and social media to repress the Hunter Biden computer story… I don’t need to continue, you know the news better than I do. The 2020 election was a fair election only in the most technical sense.
Add to that the outpouring of hatred towards the Trump administration in 2016 which expressed itself in ways (again) that I needn’t detail. The aim and the effect was to hobble the Trump administration from carrying out its agenda, and in many ways it succeeded.
I might also suggest that the Democratic party might take more effective steps than to mimic MAGA populism in order to return to power. It might be an unreasonable hope (ok, it is an unreasonable hope, but it would be effective), but the Democrats could earn the trust and respect of the American electorate if they took an active hand in reforming those cultural and political institutions that are overwhelmingly populated by Democrats. If the leadership of the party stated that it is not in the interests of the United States that 90% of the federal bureaucracy were registered Democrats, nor that 90% of college professors either. They could follow that up by working together with Republicans to right the ship of state to a more equal balance. Many Americans who feel that the Democrats have a party similar in power to that of the Communist Party in Russia would celebrate a party that was willing to risk control in order to create a more perfect union.
Both parties are full of hate for the other side. It’s the driving emotional force of contemporary politics here and across the world unfortunately. My point is that Democrats have exhausted their hate — it doesn’t work as a political force — while Trump succeeded in harnessing his hate for his “political enemies” into a relatively coherent majority force. That’s all the guy talked about in rallies, appearances, social media posts. Conservative media is full of the same sentiments. It worked this time. Democrats of course are full of hate for Trump and his people as well but it doesn’t work the same way — it’s mostly annoying, excessively “woke”, and tied to false accusations of white supremacy and fascism that backfire. It sucks as politics. Democrats do much better when they are sunny optimists like FDR and Obama and when they put aside their hate to focus on common interests among working people. Anyway, thanks for reading and offering thoughts. Cheers!
I would agree that hatred exists on both sides. I think the problem Democrats have is that their hatred is expressed by media elites who are SO visible to the rest of the non-bubblesphere. Watch NBC's or CBS's election night coverage. It was shocking how hate-filled and biased these so called news people were. (I'm talking NBC, not MSNBC). Meanwhile there is a crazy man down the street here in Phoenix who seems so full of hatred for Biden and Harris that his front yard is out of space for all the hate flags he flies. So maybe a thousand of us in a small suburb near Phoenix see his hatred manifested, while millions see it exposed on NBC. ABC. CBS. Not to mention the visibility on social media of our own friends(?) who just hate Trump so much that they sacrifice their dignity daily to reminds us of it. Yes, haters on both sides, but one side does a way better job of manifesting its hatred in ways which are anathema to party building.
Yes, and too many analysts forego the intellectual rigor it takes to acknowledge and critique the current illiberal elements and behaviors poisoning both parties, because they somehow think it must be zero sum--i.e., criticizing 'woke' means you support the worst aspects of Trump, or criticizing the worst aspects of Trump means you support woke-ism. The truth is that for those who place the values of liberal nationalism above everything else, both are part of the same problem, and any effective effort at national leadership must recognize this. The Democratic party has always been at its best when it has striven to be the party of liberal nationalism and called for unity under its banner--mere partisan rancor isn't, and never has been, enough.
As you've pointed out, it's a lot easier for Trump to point out political enemies: they're the ones filing lawsuits and bringing charges against him, incessantly accusing him of racism and fascism, and wishing the guy in Butler was a better marksman. Trump's followers get much the same treatment from the same factions of the Democratic Party, which include the party's top leaders. It's easy as pie to convince voters that the Democratic Party as an institution hates them when its Presidential candidates call them deplorables, bitter clingers, and garbage. (Of course, those weren't expressions of hate, just deep disgust and condescension.)
On the other side, the hate is much more focused on the woke, the bureaucratic state, and arrogant politicians. The woke have the dirigiste tendency to label anyone who disagrees with any of their dogma as racist, phobic, retrograde Lumpenproletariat (see: Seth Moulton). They do not attempt to persuade the great unwashed of the correctness of their views; knowing them to be correct, they insist on imposing them on everyone. The response to COVID might have been a watershed in red-pilling a broad section of the electorate because it let the woke and the bureaucracy fully indulge their "shut up and comply" instincts; that approach helped turn unanswered questions into conspiracy theories, and it didn't help when the behavior and speech rules they imposed did not work as advertised to end the pandemic quickly.
Thus, many voters who the Democrats previously regarded as reliably non-deplorable defected to Trump in this election, with the Democratic Party post-election crying, "But we didn't mean YOU! You were good ones!"
(A note on Mr. Sunnyside, Barack Obama: one of his first acts on assuming the Presidency was to call an economic summit with Congressional leaders of both parties. The Republican caucus, led by John McCain, came to him with serious proposals for getting the economy moving, ones they could support on a bipartisan basis. Obama dismissed them out of hand, famously saying, "Elections have consequences, and to be clear, I won." His sunny optimism and reach-across-the-aisle attitude was purely for show during the campaign, and especially since this last election, you see his sour, dark side on full display. As someone recently said, "Obama cares as much for the future of the Democratic Party as you do about Rwandan scoccer.")
I strongly agree, that even though Covid was not a top issue in this campaign, it was the Democrats’ Waterloo. When they flipped on a dime to using all of the tactics of the “social justice warriors” against people who questioned masks, vaccines, and the Wuhan lab, while putting millions of people out of work through government edict, they lost millions of people. Many fled blue states for red ones (Joe Rogan being a major one). They cheered on riots while law abiding citizens were confined to their homes, and their elites went to parties without masks. And perhaps most significantly, they destroyed the core religious dogma of Progressivism, which they had used to cudgel their enemies for years: “Trust The Science”. Haven’t heard that phrase in a while, have you? Not since Fauci declared, “I am the science”. The entire facade of Progressivism collapsed. Their moral certitude was borrowed from science and technology, which the flimsier, radical academic fields that spawned DEI piggybacked on. That is the left’s basis for sneering at “deplorables”. To them, Critical Theory and postmodernism are just as “scientific” as physics.
And it’s all gone. A house of cards that went bankrupt slowly, and then all at once. They did it to themselves, and Covid was the point where it all collapsed. The Emperor lost his new clothes, the curtain was pulled back on the Wizard of Oz.
"Trust the Science" is one of the most invidious phrases, used in the way Progressives use it. Science is a process of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and refining one's knowledge based on data. Unfortunately, the Progressives turned "Trust the Science" into "Trust the Consensus" or, aa in your Fauci example, "Trust Me." They put forward science as a body of dogma that cannot be questioned and needs no further data to test and update it. It was true of COVID and it's true of climate science.
“Progress” is the god, “science” is the religion, academia is the church, and academics are the high priests.
There is no simple solution for the Democrats. They are caught in a realignment that they themselves have forced, over the course of decades. The coalition of non-Democrats is now a majority. It goes back as far as the 1960s, when the cultural radicals began to take over, which led to Republicans holding the presidency for 20 out of 24 years, in multiple landslides. Clinton corrected for that by moving the Democrats fully on board with corporate interests, most importantly globalization. That started the shift of affluent college graduates to the Democrats, as the colleges continued to move left on social issues. Obama was the culmination of that agenda, a college radical who was pragmatic enough, and ambitious enough, to know that he needed to spout vague platitudes and present the right virtue signal for those white college graduates and corporate types, while determinedly pressing his ideological agenda through the institutions. It is not some kind of accident or coincidence that Obama's presidency produced the domination of the radical identity left. A simple review of Obama's life shows clearly that that is who he is. It wasn't a bug, it was a feature, that Obama's legacy is "wokeness". That is his ideology.
So if Democrats think Obama is their guide, they have no hope. His success is what has doomed them. The "image" of Obama and the reality of Obama are two different things. And like the Wizard of Oz, his curtain has fallen. It is thanks to him that they are now the party of the elite, across the board. Government, universities, corporations and the corporate media, are all now dominated by the left. They are the party of the rich, in fact and in deed. They are "the powerful". They are the ruling class. They are the oligarchs. The only way they could get on the side of the people is to abandon everything they are, because they are who the people are uniting against. The only people who haven't abandoned the Democrats are people who only care about the social issues, first and last. "Wokeness" is their religion. So the Democrats have to abandon both their base and their donors to fix what's wrong with them. That's a heavy lift.
This is not the typical back and forth that happens every two or four years, requiring minor adjustments. This is a realignment in motion, and 2024 (not 2016) is a tipping point equivalent to 1980. The next Republican win will likely be by a bigger margin, not a smaller one.
It sucks as politics is right.
Yes, I think you are right. FDR and Obama gave people something to be excited about, which in the end can be more important than policies. Harris couldn't capitalize on her vibes because there just didn't seem to be enough "there" there. Though objectionable in so many ways, I think a lot of people voted for Trump not for his hate, but because they became excited about the future (a horrible thing to say, I know, about one's political nemesis). There is no doubt that his courage after being shot was a tipping point, but no less were the endorsements of some of the most fertile minds of Silicon Valley. It engaged people's imagination for a vibrant America.
Democrats can do that, and I think even better. A vision for a better America, in addition to emphasizing infrastructure, technology, education, and human services, should also reflect fairness (values) and transparency (open discussion). When I was younger, I always believed that the Democratic Party led by example. We believed in open discussion, not censorship. We believed in the rights the individual, not a government controlled press (or nowadays, social media) or a politicized FBI.
We were out-visioned in the last election, and that is inexcusable. As I wrote above, we should be taking the lead in correcting the political inequities that define our government and educational institutions, even if it means losing control of our present bastions of power. We just learned how vulnerable those bastions are. We should stop with this self defeating Resistance and work for a better America. Yes, together with Republicans. We need not fear them. If we believe in our own vision and show that we are willing to sacrifice for it, America will join us.
I appreciate what you’re saying, but I also believe it is impossible for the Democrats to do that at any point in the near future. It took 24 years of repudiation for them to truly change direction with Clinton. And the Clintons are now part of their problems. I don’t know if they’ll be totally boxed out of the presidency for decades, but the larger, generational tide is against them. They have reached the full expression of their current ideology from 2008-2024, and it is a disaster. They will not be given that much power again for a long time.
The real pathology that has developed is a core inability to compromise or relent, and when they are rebuked, they double down. This is a cultural phenomenon within the Democratic Party that comes from being completely captured by the far left. They must signal their ideological purity by only ever getting more extreme, and by opposing everything their enemies do, no matter what. Even when it means completely contradicting themselves. It has obvious precedents under Communist dictatorships. “Cancel culture” is not a new phenomenon, it is the standard operating procedure of Communist regimes, the Stasi, the Gulag, the Cultural Revolution. Ideological purity and the paranoid ratting out of “counter revolutionaries” is the game. The Democrats have a Red Guard that they have lost control of. They have made alliance with, and captured, economic elites by staying confined to social issues, where there has been no limiting principle. But as the corporations begin to defect, starting with people like Elon Musk, they are losing the real source of their power.
That calculation that started with Clinton, of being “economically conservative and culturally liberal”, in the most general sense, has been destroyed by going off the deep end culturally, while abandoning the working class to the maw of globalization.
Good points. But why are so many Govt workers dems? Because the GOP has railed against Govt for decades (Reagan, Govt isn't the solution but the problem). Dems believe Govt can help people while the GOP wants to drown it in a bathtub. Why would a gop voter want to work there? 🤔
Another Make the Democratic Party Great Again article. I hope you succeed because politics would be less crazy but you are mimicking and in some cases expanding what is going on in the Republican Party. Trump is a reaction to similar out of touch elites in the Republican party-the supporters of corporate welfare, forever wars, open borders and subordination of American interests to every globalist scheme that comes along. Mitt Romney was the perfect avatar of this sort of Republican. Trump has, for the time being, defeated them at the Presidential level but the struggle continues. I think your policy objectives would be better met by populist fusion than by partisanship.
Interesting point, thanks. I imagine there will be some attempts at this populist fusion in the upcoming years.
A good start would be some Democratic support for the Gabbard nomination. She was a Democrat until quite recently and I suppose there is a lot of resentment for her defection as well as her demolition of Harris in the 2020 primary. However, she is were she is due to her opposition to the forever wars, which she has seen personally. As I noted above, there are still Republicans, especially in the Senate who are cheerleaders for forever wars. Put that together with solid partisan opposition from Democrats and she is in jeopardy. Do the Democrats really want to be branded as the war party? My initial affiliation with the Democratic party was mainly because they were anti-war. First the dissidents and eventually, the mainstream.
Excellent article—some of the most spot-on analysis I’ve read here at TLP, both in terms in summarizing the internal dynamics of the party and its relationship to the opposition and Trump, and in terms of concrete suggestions for reform. Wish I could pin it to the top of every Congressional Democrat’s inbox.
"The Democratic Party elite needs to be replaced"
This is your first priority. There's no use plastering talking points all over the place in front of people who are inherently opposed to rocking the boat.
I'm fascinated by the endless repetition of the term "working people". Who do Democrats imagine those people are? In my experience, they are professionals like doctors, lawyers, teachers, professors, entrepreneurs, as well as small business owners that support larger entities. They are all people who work, and are apparently not included in the present Party's appeal.
So? Is this an admission that their Party speaks only to those elites who are not " working"? Why would any actually operational enterprise recruit lazy, useless effetes? But it appears that this was Democrats' targeted choice for membership. And they wonder why they lost? They should be way further buried in their enchanted forests of walled castles than they are. And hopefully, will become. They are annoying, irritating, entitled potentates in a land of make believe.
Just begone. You're in the way of those who actually do work, to make things work, for the rest of us. You know, the irredeemables, the deplorables, the ordinary people, the non-urban folks, moms, dads, fly-overs, ie., proud Americans.
That "the Party" needs to remake itself is mind boggling. How do you plan to engineer a different foundation? Fake it? Lie? Pretend? The jig is up, guys. Being even more fraudulent and hypocritical isn't going to work. We know who you are. Begone.
Good reminder that FDR listed freedom of speech first.
"Democrats cannot mimic what Trump did after his loss in 2020 and expect to win the allegiance of more voters in the future."
The Democrats with their dishonest media bullhorn lie to themselves until they believe their lies and this is their primary problem.
They barely won in 2020 with a large pile of election shenanigans that were enabled by the global pandemic. They then ran around telling themselves that they won because they were more popular... and just failed to accept that, no, their ideas and behavior was NOT popular and without all that mail in balloting advantage, they would have lost.
The Democrats biased media is their downfall as well as their ideology that attacks and cancels criticism. They are living in a bubble of zero self-awareness that they need to change and reform.
Resistance will not get it done. That was proven with the historical comeback of Trump in consideration of the full on media and Democrat project to destroy his brand.
Very insightful and extremely accurate. Fortunately, They’re already is a party that has most of these features and ideals It’s called the Republicans. What do you call a Democratic Classic Liberal….a current Republican. All of our policy should be designed for people that make 100 grand a year. That means the middle class. Not sure I have the time or patience to try to reform the Democrats when they’re already a party to choose from
I agree that the Dems can't hate and win mostly because it devolves into not being curious about why the other side voted the way they did. It is easier to yell racist! Than actually attempt to listen to why they voted Trump.
For me much of reasons why come down to the massive misinformation machine on the right that makes sure a lie gets around the world while the truth is putting on it's shoes (summary twain).
In almost all the reporting I've seen with Trump voters their reasons to vote for him are based on misinformation.
Before cable and the internet we had a shared fact base with the mainstream media. No longer.
So how do dems get facts and their ideas into the right wing ecosystem?
Misinformation like once you get the vaccine you can't spread covid? Misinformation like children can't go to school because it isn't safe? Misinformation like wearing a Snoopy mask will stop the spread? Misinformation like the DOJ wasn't laser-focused on conservatives? Misinformation like Comey setting up Trump and Strzok receiving $1.2M settlement and cable news contract? Misinformation like the '51' intelligence officials meddling in the election? Misinformation about Russia collusion (which Dems are still peddling to this very day!)? (Read Matt Taibbi's latest article on the devasting consequences of that were to hard-working Americans.) Yeah, keep blaming the stupid voters.
OK then... Proving my point. 🤣
Where am I wrong?
Completely serious question. Do Dems who really believe, the worst inflation in 40 years and 10 million unvetted migrants roaming the US, are "misinformation"? Ditto, for the largest gap between US median wages and US median home prices, in history?
Misinformation is not the problem. Horrendous policies, that beget even worse outcomes, for Working and Middle class America, are the problem. There is no rightwing echo system. And if there were, no one in the Working or Middle Class, would have time for it.
Parents working 3 jobs between them, deciding between gas and groceries, while constantly monitoring their checking account balances, do not give a flying fig about anyone's "ecosystem". They are racing between basketball and piano lessons, while attempting to return home, in time to meet the dryer repairman.
They want to be able to afford summer day camp. They want to be able to take a walk after dinner, in a safe neighborhood. They do not want teacher time, in already failing public schools, to be eaten up by new arrivals, speaking 4 different languages.
In short, they want the lives they had, before Biden walked into the WH.
Yes but everybody--even many, if not most, parents working 3 jobs--uses social media, and there is a vast ecosystem of right-wing outlets (tv stations and media corporations like Fox News, the outlets of the One America News Network, the Sinclair family of news stations and publications) that propagate misinformation via social media platforms. This misinformation then comes to dominate the newsfeeds of many individuals by leveraging viral techniques, and due to the design of social media platforms' algorithms--which is to get as much attention as quickly as possible. Attention is generated quickest by content that instills people with fear, paranoia, and anger, regardless of truth value. This is how so many people fall down the right-wing "internet rabbit hole" just by getting their news from Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.
This distorts the context of the phenomena you mentioned. Though the problems of inflation and illegal immigration are real, the right-wing media portrays them in exaggerated and *unreal* ways. To take one example, it is why you had large numbers of people in Wisconsin complaining that illegal migrants were taking their jobs, when the migrant population in Wisconsin is vanishingly small and could not possibly have any effects on the labor market. Biden's border policies were a legitimate problem--but not to the extent that people crossing the border were showing up en masse in the Frostbelt or the Northeast and disrupting the labor market there.
Or take inflation--its primary cause was scrambled supply chains meeting the pent-up demand unleashed by the end of the lockdowns. Inflation happened all over the globe, in both conservative and liberal policy regimes--and it was *lowest* in the United States. (the dollar also went *up* in value during Biden's term) It didn't spring up in response to Biden's policies; but, again, the right-wing media system amplified and spread, very effectively, the narrative that it did, draining the issue of its context.
Democrats must confront and address all the issues that Mr. Halpin mentioned above--they are real, and a huge part of the party's political problems. But it is *also* true that they must develop effective measures to fight against the sea of right-wing misinformation that has swept the nation and the world, because it is also very real.
Immigration was not a large issue for the majority of Dems. Most migrants do not dwell, dine or shop in upper middle class, Blue enclaves. In fact, the human tsunami, lowered the cost of migrant Domestics, that serve the the US Upper Middle and Ruling Classes.
As a result of their own limited experience, many Dems wrongly presumed immigration was of limited importance, especially in Swing States. Dems attributed the problem to messaging. Sparsely educated and unsophisticated voters, too easily swayed by "misinformation", did realize realize the exaggeration.
Firstly, it is impossible to calculate how many migrants reside in Wisconsin, or anywhere else. Along with the 8 million, processed, nearly 2 million nameless Gotaways, roam the US. Border surveillance shows them entering the US, but no one knows where, they currently dwell. Even the NYT recently admitted, migrant numbers are, generally, woefully underreported.
Moreover, if an unlicensed migrant contractor, with a migrant crew, wins a job in Wisconsin, that would have otherwise been awarded to American workers, the American jobs lost, will never appear statistically, but the Americans who lost work, certainly understand who, replaced them.
Ditto for their friends, family, and fellow congregants. Their Knights of Columbus brothers and Lodge members, also know. The owner of their favorite restaurant, also understands why regular customers, now dine out less often. Likewise, for the owner of the bowling alley, the worker formerly frequented. It is clear, just a few job losses, can generate a large impact on community voting.
The children of Wisconsin voters, overwhelmingly, attend public schools. Just a few migrant arrivals, often lacking English skills, or any prior formal education, require the bulk of teacher time. Placed mainly by age, migrant students are often, academically, years behind their classmates.
The marked change in the classroom is pronounced, unavoidable, and rarely positive. Parents understand, and vote accordingly. Dem leaders, whose own children are, overwhelmingly, privately educated, underestimated the impending backlash, only a few students can generate.
Dems continue to insist the US has the best economy in the world, and by certain standards, they are correct. Few in the Middle and Working Class care. They care their living standards became, and remain, markedly worse, under Biden.
On the the other hand, the top quintile of earners have enjoyed, soaring asset prices. Not only have they barely noticed inflation, many take great pride in the insane prices. A $500K living room, only, remodel was once unthinkable, even for the US wealthy. Now such projects have their own regular section, in the WSJ.
The unexpected windfalls, caused Dems to greatly under appreciate the pain Dem economic policy, inflicted on the majority of the country. Inexplicably, most Dems could not even feign sympathy for Americans, suffering the worst inflation in 40 years.
Instead, Dems spent a year lecturing Americans, the US economy was the strongest in the world. US voters were simply too stupid, to appreciate their good fortune. Upon neutral review, the Harris loss, should not be surprising, nor was it caused by misinformation.
FWIW, I appreciate this thoughtful response.
And, indeed, the Dems *did* make a mistake in not paying more attention to the immigration issue, because it created issues in the border states and to some degree adjacent states, and made them look incompetent. No argument there.
But let's assume, in the example I gave above, that this helped bring the total 'unauthorized' population of Wisconsin up to 70,000, which is among the most generous estimates of its size: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/unauthorized-immigrant-population/state/WI
That is approximately 1.2% of the total population of Wisconsin. Which means, like I said, that the average Wisconsinite is highly unlikely to ever encounter a member of this group. If every member of it went into the work force (which is *extremely* unlikely), they would compose 2% of said labor force. (going off the BLS's estimates: https://dwd.wisconsin.gov/workforce-solutions/wai/labor-market-brief.htm) That is not remotely enough to cause any kind of serious disruption--yet a large proportion of those who voted for Trump in Wisconsin and other Midwestern states listed it as their #1 issue, as if there was some kind of crisis going on there. And that is because the narrative of a 'migrant wave' in the state (which, by the numbers, was clearly not happening, and thus can be fairly characterized as misinformation) was very effectively propagated via social media--and the outlets pushing that narrative were the various aforementioned right-wing outlets.
And certainly no one can deny that the working and middle class have struggled with inflation the past few years--I never said they didn't. I 100% agree that Biden should have also done a better job of recognizing and focusing on their struggles, rather than trying to 'sell' the economy as 'better than you think'. But the narrative that inflation was uniquely bad in the US, and that this uniquely bad inflation was a localized effect of Biden's policies, is a false one, and one that was effectively amplified via the aforementioned ecosystem.
So, again, while it is absolutely fair to say the Democrats made big messaging errors, and have all sorts of internal problems that continue to thwart their success (many of which are articulated very well in this article), it is *also* entirely accurate to say that they also have to fight against a large disinformation system that works on behalf of the right, and compounds the effects of their messaging mistakes. Both can be (and are) true, and both should be acknowledged and addressed if the Dems want to be competitive again.
Am going to guess, you have limited experience with small towns and rural, Midwest living. The above premise attempts to link the percentage of the migrant population, directly to percentage of voters, spurred by immigration.
I believe you are missing my point. A Wisconsin Lodge of 300 members, needn't experience 300 job losses, for the vast majority of the Lodge members, to vote to limit immigration. The loss of livelihood by 1 Lodge family, to a migrant, may not be deemed a "serious disruption" to you, but it is a safe bet most Lodge families, will see it as one. As a result, many will vote to curtail migration. Ditto for the Knights of Columbus, Rotary Club, th ladies Aux, and the local book, bunko and pickle ball clubs. . .
Likewise, if only 2 grades in a small school are negatively affected by the arrival of migrant students, it should not be a surprise, the majority of school parents, many whose children will never encounter a migrant directly, will vote for less immigration, based on the "disruption" of the 2 grades.
While it is a shock many urban dwellers, Midwest and small town dwellers, tend to stick together. They needn't personally experience job loss, or a loss of teacher time to migrants, to realize someone, similarly situated, in their orbit, has endured it. That is neither the result of Fox News poisoning, nor omnipresent, mythical misinformation. It is concern and empathy for friends, neighbors and those similarly situated, engrained in the culture.
Dems can keep informing voters the migrant wave was vastly overstated by social media, but they should not be surprised if the tactic doesn't work.
Actually I have a decent amount of experience with both, and I also think you are correct that 'organic' social networks transmit social anxieties beyond individual interactions; however, it is extremely dubious that those sorts of network effects alone could make marginal changes in a group of 70,000 people one of the top concerns of around 1.5 million people. If they were that powerful on their own, you would see them produce similar shifts in concern for other issues when there are significant developments related to said issues. For example, the size of the 'unauthorized' population grew by only a very small amount in Wisconsin from 2016-2022, while the number of deaths from heart failure increased by around 11.5%--a much more significant amount of growth. (https://usafacts.org/answers/what-are-the-leading-causes-of-death-in-the-us/state/wisconsin/) Yet those voters that voted for Republican candidates in 2022 still listed immigration higher on their list of top issues than healthcare, the subject which those network effects would have, in theory, pushed them to prioritize more, given that there were significant negative changes in the quality of people's health, but negligible negative changes in the size of the undocumented population.
This disparity makes sense, however, when you account for the fact that the 'migrant crisis' narrative was what was propagated most effectively on social media by the outlets I mentioned, not the subject of healthcare.
Even if we disagree on this matter, though, it looks like we at least agree on one thing, which is that telling voters they are being duped by social media using the existing media ecosystem probably won't help the Dems that much. IMO, they will need to invest more in the growth of their own, countervailing media ecosystem, and will need to figure out a way to more effectively work within the algorithmically-governed infoscape of the major social media platforms, most crucially by improving their ability to leverage these platforms' virality-driven dynamics. Right now, the rightwing media outlets are more adept at the latter--and, however much of an illiberal, narcissistic grifter Trump may be, there can be no doubt that he is *especially* gifted at it.
You really think that life in the USA was heaven in 2019?
Democrats have a trust problem. I have searched for a reasonable, centrist Democrat to support in my area in Eastern Washington as the state government is solidly Democrat and that doesn't look to change soon. I thought that perhaps by supporting moderate Democrats we could edge the party back towards sanity. No joy - every candidate I've investigated and interacted with will talk a good game in generalities but then when pushed for specific stances on things like taxes, "gender affirming care" for minors, DEI, supporting the Washington state constitution on gun rights - crickets. They have given me no reason to believe that if they get to Olympia they would be anything other than a Democrat cipher, voting the progressive party line. I don't trust them to actually put their votes where their mouths are.
"You can’t build a majoritarian party in touch with working people if your current party is entirely run and represented by out-of-the-mainstream cultural elites and college-educated weirdos."
I don't think you will be able to dislodge the weirdos. They are much more committed and energetic than the normies in the Democratic Party. They certainly won't agree to damp down their cultural causes in the name of electoral politics, because they would view that as self-betrayal of their holy crusade(s).
You also have the problem of the capital-S Socialists. Bernie Sanders may talk about putting working-class economics ahead of cultural crusades, but his flavor of working-class economics he learned from Castro and Chavez.
I expect that to build a majoritarian party of addition, you are going to have to engage in some political subtraction. You are going to have to tell the cultural and economic radicals to hive off into their own party and formally disunite with the Democratic Socialists.
Then your only challenge will be how to convince voters in the middle that the reformed Democratic Party is better at doing patriotism, normalcy, and economic growth with low taxation than the Trump-led Republican Party.
It sounds to me that you are convinced that the Trump GOP is right about everything. If so, why should the Democrats bother to continue to exist? It would seem that in your world the proper role of Democrats would be to retire from politics.
The proper role for Democrats is to figure out what they stand for, what they SHOULD stand for, and how to represent those things in policy and practice. I note that this substack believes that the Democrats should stand for economic opportunity and prosperity for the working class, American civic pride, public safety, a strong but not highly activist national defense, and common values that respect the rights of minorities without putting those rights above the rights of everyone else. (If I got any of this wrong, please correct me.)
My view is that all of those things are being represented now by the Trump-reformed Republican Party. Thus, the challenge for the Democrats is to come up with policies and a rationale that convinces both themselves and the electorate that they can represent those goals and values better than the Republicans can. One challenge the Democrats face is that the Democratic Socialists are licking their chops at the prospect of taking over the Democratic Party and cementing their priorities in place. The history of such Left-radical movements suggests that they will then purge the party of its moderates - and then you may find your only politically effective home will be in the neopopulist Republican Party.
I would love to hear any alternative perspectives.
Thank you for responding and clarifying your views and for recognizing the SHOULD might mean something different from doing whatever is mos likely to win the next election. It seems, though, that you believe that there is really no way that the Democrats could currently improve on the Trump -reformed Republican party. If that's the case, it would seem the Democrats should just lay low until such time as Trump dies and Republican leaders diverge from the path blazed by Trump. Sort of like the minority parties do under Putin.
Well, the first step still remains: instead of focusing on why they lost the 2024 election and how they can win in the 2026 midterms and in 2028, the Democratic Party needs to figure out what they currently stand for - across all their factions - and what they SHOULD stand for as a common set of values all the factions can share. I am personally skeptical that all of the parts of the Democratic Party can agree on one common set of values, and I think at this point the Progressive wing will be unwilling to paper over its difference with the rest of the party because they feel they've done that over and over and the results have been poor, not to mention not advancing their Progressive agenda.
You are probably right about the Progressives. I am a moderate Democrat. I believe in a strong safety net, a fair tax system, environmental protection and a foreign policy that does not "beggar they neighbor" or work to establish tyranny abroad, in short, an FDR/Obama Dem. The Progressive cultural agenda on sex and race I could do without but I don't want to encourage the people who are big on that stuff to stay home in 2026 and 2028. Sounds like the best thing to do is wait for the GOP to screw up, which, if history serves as a guide, will probably happen soon. On the other hand, if contrary to my expectation, the new administration brings peace and prosperity to the world, I will admit the error of my past votes and not worry about politics anymore.
Alternative strategies: Wait for the Republicans to fuck up worse than the Democrats. Get rid of the high priced political consultants.
Wait for the Republicans to fuck up worked just fine in 1932, 1976, 1992, 2008 and 2020. Based on history, there is a very good chance that in 2029 people will be writing on whether the GOP can possibly survive after the 2026 recession and getting only 46% of the vote in 2028. And that will be nonsense as is much of what has been written here.
There are some good points here but the extent of the loss is exaggerated. Trump barely won. The implication of this is that the Democrats can't completely abandon the "completely out of touch" positions that 47% of the voters voted for without losing money, enthusiasm and votes. It is correct, however, that the Democrats will never control he Senate again until they can get votes outside the big cities. I'd really like to hear more details about what the Democrats should do to help themselves and the country rather than harping on the faults of the so called "elites" (that apparently reliably control over 45% of the vote, a pretty big sect).
This hits a lot of nails on the head and sounds like a plan. An easy way to reinforce the emphasis on American values and defuse hostility toward Republicans would be to embrace the way Dr. King and his allies appealed to a patriotism rooted in the nation’s defining ideals.
We often forget that until Vietnam, the political thrust of American patriotism was mostly progressive - in the sense of progress toward the realization of our ideals.
In my own work against money in politics I find this is a unifying message with considerable emotional resonance.
# 1 is the biggest challenge. good luck on that. Also quit calling the Democrat Party ‘Democratic’ Party. Its recent past has not been democratic and I beleive it was initially founded as the Democrat Party.
Pretty good article except one comment, do you really want to label all college educated as "weirdos", are we really ready to ditch college educated as useful citizens? Are you college educated? and are you therefore a weirdo? Are all rich people and lawyers to be thrown under the bus? Are they also not useful citizens who are worthy of an opinion or of value?
That's mentioned in the context of the strange cultural left ideas emanating from party elites who are uniformly college-educated. Plenty of normal people are college-educated, but they don't run the Democratic Party. As far as the rich and lawyers go -- more power to them but there are more than enough of them running for office and directing the party.
You might clarify what is "normal" in the future. White, heterosexuals making between 50K and 250K ?
Also, Trump, Musk and the My Pillow guy are not exactly "normal" either (nor was FDR for that matter) but somehow those guys (narrowly) won the last election.