What do Democrats stand for?

Democrats stand for government as a force for good.

But they are all divided on actual goals, and means, and exactly who government is supposed to help.

Headline in The Hill

An Oregon attorney who is a regular reader of this blog wrote me saying he thought he understood what Republicans stand for:  

"Republicans value initiative, individualism, self determination, and freedom from government intervention and regulation (unless it comes to drugs and sex).  Republicans define themselves as people in opposition to Democrats.  As framed above, Republicans mostly win when talking of values because they sound so, well, American.  Democrats have had so many factions, such a 'big tent," that they seem to be stuck with 'identity politics' -- policies and programs for a rainbow coalition  of different identities.  

I find myself asking: "what do Democrats stand for?" Health care for all?  Free college? Debt relief?  Just comparing Trump to Hitler is not persuasive and won't make the lives of the working class better. . . . "

What do Democrats stand for?

I watched up close both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders (and actually, also Martin O'Malley and Lincoln Chaffee) articulate Democratic policies.   The problem for Democrats is that their message is muddled and complicated.  They do not really agree on goals, nor on means, nor on whom they are focused on serving.  Hillary's message came down to a defense of members of a coalition of the disadvantaged: blacks, Hispanics, women, gays.  It could be a majority, except that too many people voted on grounds other than those identities.

Is there a Democratic consensus on jobs?  Alas, not.   The lack of a message on jobs is the key missing piece for Democrats.   Democrats are not comfortable with the production portion of the economy, only the allocation of the rewards of it.  Is it possible to be pro environmentalist and pro economic growth?  The answer must be yes, for Democrats to develop a successful message.  Americans who mine things, who grow things, who harvest things, and who build things are overwhelmingly Republican.   People who recreate outdoors can be Democrats, but people who work outdoors are overwhelmingly Republican.

Is there a Democratic consensus on health care?   Obama articulated a goal: Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor, affordable health insurance access for everyone else.  Democrats disagree on what is possible now.   Fix the ACA?  Move to single payer? Medicare for all?   This indecision divides up the Democrats.  The goal of universal health care is expensive and it appears out of reach.  After all, Democrats lost their majority having taken the baby step of the ACA.

Sanders in New Hampshire

Is there a Democratic consensus on reproductive rights?  Not quite.  Nearly all Democrats support affordable access to contraception and infection control, and most support access to abortion in early pregnancy.   Most condemn outright stigmatization or prohibition of homosexuality.  Beyond this it gets muddled and Republicans effectively make wedge issues at the margins.  When, exactly, is an abortion too late, with focus on ugly cases at the margin.  Must tradesmen and vendors service homosexual marriages?  How, exactly, may institutions address non binary gendered people?   The consensus evaporates, and Democrats find themselves defending hard cases--e.g. the very late term abortion.

Is there a Democratic consensus on how to create opportunity to transition out of poverty  into prosperity?   Not at all.   Some think employee unionization is the answer; others think that train has left the station, especially as we move into a freelance gig economy.   Some think we should have free public college (Sanders), others inexpensive loans and scholarships (Hillary), others that concentration on college as opposed to non-college skills is both classist and a failure to address the real needs of the citizens. 

Is there a Democratic consensus on the role of the wealthy in America?  No.  There is a general belief that taxation should be more progressive, but all consensus fractures in the details.   Some want higher taxes on dividends, interest, and other investment income and higher marginal tax rates, but this runs into a problem with the Democratic donor class.   Thirty years ago Republican campaigns had money and Democrats had people, but in recent decades Democrats have located a donor base so they can compete head to head with Republicans financially.  It enabled the Bill Clinton presidency.  Some Democrats (Sanders) see this as a bad and corrupting bargain, with Democrats having sold out to globalist special interests.  The Hillary wing notes that educated, prosperous people are Americans, too, and see prosperity as a goal, not a crime.   Democrats are conflicted on prosperity and the institutions that help create it.

Hillary in New Hampshire

Is there a Democratic consensus on immigration?  No.  There is a general consensus that Democrats should not emulate Trump in his tone, but there is no consensus on whether people here illegally should be deported, allowed to stay as non-citizens, or whether there should be a pathway to citizenship.   Democrats are divided on whether immigrants disadvantage native born people by depressing their wages, both in high skill occupations in technology and in low skill labor positions.   In the past Democrats like Barbara Jordon and Bill Clinton have advocated a low immigration rate as a way to protect work opportunities for the native born poor.   The Hillary position drifted toward pro-immigration, partly because it was a response to Trump rhetoric and on the assumption that it would win Hispanic votes while the native born poor and working class would vote Democratic because of the Democratic party's historic commitment to ending poverty.   It did not work.  A great many Hispanics voted for Trump and the native born poor got lifesaving benefits, but then did not vote.  Working class whites overwhelmingly chose Trump.  Lose-lose-lose.

Will Democratic candidates emerge who will provide leadership to make a comprehensive argument that resolves this?  Yes, but I predict deep fractures.   Sanders-oriented progressives start with a premise that the economic institutions of the country are fundamentally corrupted and that, as Sanders put it, "we need a political revolution."  They will be unsatisfied with Democratic candidates who are successful practitioners in the current political system and they will perceive them as accommodationists and sell-outs.  I see this kind of description of the current Democratic leadership: Pelosi, Schumer, Perez, and locally for Senator Ron Wyden.   Activist Democrats who have advanced in the party post the 2016 election are heavy with people who voted for Sanders and then voted for Jill Stein or who brag that the "held their noses" and cast a reluctant vote for Hillary.

The white working class may be lost to Democrats.. _Click Here

A Democratic candidate needs to excite Democrats and bridge the fractures in the party, and this may not be possible.   The divides are real, and Democrats have a turnout problem.  The Democratic constituency does not necessarily vote for Trump.   The problem is that poor people tend to be insufficiently engaged in middle class behaviors to adopt the middle class behavior of voting, and politically more engaged middle class and young progressive Democrats are less willing to "settle" than are Republicans. 

There is a problem with the working poor.   A great many of them resent the poor-poor.   The poor and the working poor are not political allies.  They are political rivals, with the working poor quick to condemn the poor for bad attitudes, behaviors, and work ethic.  (The states with the biggest vote against Obama and Hillary--West Virginia and Kentucky--were the states that were among the biggest beneficiaries of Obamacare.)   

A Democratic candidate needs to perform the difficult task of reuniting the interests of the poor and working poor, plus uniting progressive voters who want progress with those who want revolution, while being exciting and inspiring and unifying amid a political landscape dominated by Trump.