The future of the Democratic Party and two myths that need to die
There has been a whole lot of doom and gloom among some elite leftists and Democrats lately, especially those who are on Twitter. It is summed up in this very good article by Ezra Klein. I highly recommend reading it. The main point is about David Shor. For those not familiar with him, he is a Democratic strategist and has been widely listened to during the past year, including by the Biden Administration. He is also extremely pessimistic about the future of Democrats, especially in the Senate. His argument is basically that all politics is national (true) and that the Senate is so heavily biased against Democrats that they will be out of power for a long time to come (probably false although one’s definition of a long time can vary a lot).
It is the latter part I take issue with it. Shor argues that the Democratic Party is being hindered by its campaign staffers and donors. That is because they are heavily educated, white, liberal and young when very little of the electorate is. Donors and activists inhabit their own worlds where everyone agrees with them and they are unable to distinguish those bubbles from real life. Much of this is the product of education polarization. Where college-educated voters used to lean Republican, now they are heavily Democratic. As a result, Democrats have become more like college-educated voters, but have lost ground with working-class voters and not just whites.
Needless to say, I share Shor’s concern about Democrats being enthralled to activists and donors from tiny bubbles. That said, I take issue with Shor’s determinism. As he explains it, things are basically set in stone. The Senate is only going to get worse for Democrats, along with the electoral college. That is an almost unstoppable trend. It is that part that I do not buy.
Anyone who claims to know what things are going to look like even a few years from now is kidding themselves. Anyone who claims to know what things will be look in ten or more years is delusional. True, the current coalitional arrangements work to Republicans’ advantage in the Senate. Yet it is Democrats who are in charge, albeit barely. Although Democrats barely control the House and may well lose it next year, I believe the future there is quite bright.
I do not expect Democrats to have 60 Senate seats like they did after 2008. There is too much polarization for that. If I had to guess, I would think Republicans would have an edge in the Senate, but only a slight edge. So much of that will be determined by who is in the White House and how good/bad an election cycle they have. We cannot know how that will play out. What I can say confidently is that the next Democratic majority, like the current one, will be much more cohesive than the one after 2008. Their future majorities will be narrower, but will agree on much more.
In the House, for all the crying Democrats do over gerrymandering, they will get to do plenty of it themselves this time around. Republicans may wind up just gaining a seat or two overall from redistricting, in sharp contrast with last decade and the initial doom and gloom of just a few months ago. The good news for Democrats is that their current coalition is heavy on college-educated white voters who turn out regularly. That should help in midterms.
The current coalition that Democrats are relying on is very new in some ways. Democrats are now competing and winning in places they used to not win like Georgia and Arizona. The shift among non-college voters, especially whites, conversely, has made Ohio and Iowa basically red states. But these coalitions are still in flux, as coalitions always are in our system. While I believe they will probably last through the next few cycles, beyond that is not clear at all. Sure, they could continue, but they could also reverse or go in a whole new direction.
To get an idea of how rapidly and unpredictably things can change, think back to 2011. Paul Ryan was all the rage. The question in Washington was not whether to cut spending, but by how much. Obama and congressional Democrats supported reforms to Medicare and Social Security. In 2012, Mitt Romney ran hard on being anti-government and on repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Paul Ryan was his running mate and openly worshipped Ayn Rand. Who in 2011 thought Donald Trump would be nominated for president?
Where are things today? Joe Manchin, the most conservative Democrat in Congress, supports spending $1.5 trillion on top of the infrastructure package the Senate just passed. The current Democratic majority passed a $1.9 trillion stimulus package when the last Democratic majority in 2009 struggled to pass something less than half that size. Nobody in Congress is talking about cuts to Medicare and Social Security. The Republican attempt to repeal the ACA in 2017 failed and they have not said a word about it since. Paul Ryan is out of Congress and completely irrelevant. I think we all know how Donald Trump played out.
As awful as they are, Republicans in Congress have actually moderated a good bit on policy. They basically believe in nothing, which is a far cry from where they were ten years ago. The debate over the size of government is over and those who wanted small government lost decisively. That is the backdrop for Republicans doing much better among non-college educated voters. They did it by abandoning anti-government rhetoric and policies. I remember very well how, in 2012, Republicans talked endlessly about business owners and entrepreneurs (“I built it”) and seldom talked about workers. Trump did not do that when he ran and Republicans have abandoned that rhetoric since.
I mention all this because maybe this is just a phase. Maybe they will go back to advocating for Paul Ryanism and lose some of the voters they have gained since 2012. Had Trump run on Mitt Romney’s platform, I highly doubt he would have won. If Republicans decide to go back to advocating for Paul Ryanism, they will lose support among working-class voters. Conversely, they may do better again in educated suburban areas. We just do not know.
I am not going to prognosticate as to which kinds of events will happen this decade. That is a fool’s errand. What I am pointing out is that all kinds of events that nobody is predicting right now can happen that scramble coalitions. The only thing I can confidently say is that such events are likely to happen. We just have no way of knowing what they will be. Maybe the changes brought about by the pandemic will have an effect. Maybe we will have another recession or a war (let’s hope not). Maybe we will have a genuine debt crisis (let’s also hope not) that forces us to make hard choices between raising taxes and cutting spending. As Yogi Berra said, predictions are tough, especially about the future.
I overall think Shor's message is good despite his misplaced determinism. Democrats should focus on doing things that are popular. What Biden is trying to do now falls under that. Shor correctly emphasizes that doing what is popular is not necessarily moderate or centrist. Some ideas pushed for by the left are popular, i.e., Medicare negotiating drug prices. Democrats should advocate for that. What left-wing activists and donors need to realize is that swing voters in key states are not like them. They are not socialists and they are not woke. If they were, they would not be swing voters.
Shor himself is emblematic of one of the major problems on the left. Until last summer, he worked for a left-leaning polling firm. When he re-tweeted someone talking about how rioting was bad, he was fired. It was appalling. I remember when it happened and will never forgive that firm for it. That is what is wrong with so much of the left-wing world. To think that denouncing rioting is bad because it was seen as pro-Trump or not supporting Black Lives Matter goes to show once again how insular that crowd is. Luckily for Shor, his getting fired helped make him a star, but most other victims like that have not been so lucky.
One problem I have with Shor is that he lives in New York City. Why is that a problem? Because he is so concerned about the bias of the Senate against Democrats. He is originally from Miami and should move back. Or he could move to Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, Pennsylvania or another swing state or potential swing state. Nothing irritates me more than seeing someone complain about how unfair the Senate or electoral college is when they live in a solidly blue state. Want to fix those problems? Move! New York is solidly blue and that is not going to change any time soon. I would love nothing more than to see a mass exodus of Democrats from solidly blue states to purple and even red states. That will fix any geographic biases real fast. Just send a few hundred thousand New Yorkers and Californians to Idaho, Montana, Alaska and Wyoming and Democrats will rule the Senate forever.
Myth 1: higher turnout always helps Democrats
It is taken as gospel by Democrats and Republicans that higher turnout benefits Democrats. Hence, efforts by Democrats to make voting easier and Republicans to make it harder. It is a myth. Higher turnout does not automatically benefit Democrats. It can in some places, but not others. Turnout was much higher in 2020 than 2018, the latter of which was a much better year for Democrats. Higher turnout in Sun Belt states is probably good for Democrats, but in the Midwest, it is good for Republicans.
The belief that Democrats always do poorly in midterms (never true to begin with) really needs to be laid to rest. Going forward, it may be Democrats who stand to gain in midterms with their new coalition and benefit from lower voter turnout. Why? Because college-educated whites are regular voters. They used to favor Republicans, but have now shifted towards Democrats. More than anything else, that is why Georgia and Arizona are purple and Virginia and Colorado are blue. If Texas flips, that will be why. It is why Democrats may even have a slight edge in the House. That is a far cry from just a few years ago when many, including Shor, thought Democrats could never win the House without winning the national popular vote by a double-digit margin.
One downside for Republicans with their new coalition of non-college educated voters is that they tend to turn out at lower rates, especially in midterms. It could be that many of them were uniquely attracted to Trump and may not vote without him on the ballot. That is speculative for now, but hardly implausible. It is a kind of double-edged sword with non-college voters. Although there are lots of them and they are overrepresented in many states, their turnout tends to be low. In states like Ohio and Iowa, that is likely not a problem, but in other states like Pennsylvania it could be a problem. In the not-too-distant past, it was largely true that Democrats would benefit from higher turnout. That is no longer the case today and everyone needs to realize that.
Myth 2: only Democrats have to try to be popular
Some left-wing activists and others seem to believe that Republicans can do whatever they want and pay no electoral price for it. Let’s take a trip down memory lane. In 2005, George W Bush proposed a partial privatization of Social Security. What happened? It flopped, his approval rating tanked and never recovered, his party lost Congress the next year and nobody has advocated for that idea since. In 2012, Mitt Romney ran on a platform of privatizing Medicare. He lost, Trump opposed it in 2016 and Republicans have not said a word about it since. In 2017, Trump tried to repeal the ACA. It was horribly unpopular, it failed in the Senate and his party lost the House the next year. Republicans have said almost nothing about the ACA ever since. Let’s also remember that Republicans opposed gay marriage and gays serving in the military. What are the odds they ever campaign against either of those again?
The idea that Republicans can do as they please and face no consequences is pure fantasy. If they started advocating again for cutting Social Security and Medicare, it would be every Democrats’ dream come true. If they try to do it again when they are back in power, they will not be there for long. I do not know where left-wing activists get the idea that only Democrats have to try to be popular, but they are living in a fantasy world.
Ironically, one upside to the Republicans becoming a post-policy party is it actually is much better for them electorally than Paul Ryanism was. It disarms Democrats of one of their best weapons against them, claiming they will cut Medicare and Social Security while cutting taxes for the rich. What the future holds with respect to policy positions is unknown, but Republicans would be smart to not bring back those things.
One difference between right-wing activists and left-wing activists is that when right-wing activists advocate for things that are unpopular, like cutting taxes for the rich, they do not call it that. That is in sharp contrast with left-wing activists who, when they push for unpopular things, they call them exactly what they are. For example, left-wing activists who wanted to divert money from police to social services could have simply called it investing in social services. Instead, they opted for defund the police. It is a really destructive tendency on their part to call things by the most toxic name possible and then demand that Democratic elected officials and candidates adopt it. I have never heard a right-wing activist come out and say Republicans should explicitly embrace cutting taxes on the rich nor have I heard any of them say Republicans should call for abolishing Social Security or Medicare. Whenever they advocate for things like cutting Medicare, they frame it as strengthening it. That is, of course, disingenuous, but is smart branding. Left-wing activists might want to take a page from that playbook.