Progressive Democrats are going through a cleansing process.
They are cleaning out the heretics. Some of those "heresies" are their salvation, and they aren't heresies. But when a group is focusing on clearing out dissenters they throw them all out. That is a big mistake. Some heretics are correct and they have kept the faith.
In the cleaning process progressives have decided that "the center" is a place of heresy. Facebook pages from progressive groups criticize Democrats, the DNC, Tom Perez, Chuck Schumer. The Democrats stole the election, they say, stole it from Bernie. Bernie would have won. A great many of them are still angry and blame regular establishment Democrats, the kinds of people who have won elections in the past.
This blog has made the point that the swing voters are not "in the middle" because there aren't that many "middle" people and because leftist voters will abandon someone who appears to go to the middle. The swing voters up for grabs are the people who don't bother to vote.
That is the problem. Go to the center and lose the left. But estrange white Americans and working class Americans and you depress the turnout of the those huge groups. What is the solution? Re-define progressive, and re-define acceptable positions for progressives. Some of the heresies are actually OK. They aren't heresies.
Progressive candidates and activists who hope to win must recognize that they are flirting with a very dangerous rule of thumb as they clean out heretics, if they think that anything that appeals to conservatives must be bad. That is factually wrong, inconsistent with real progressive, inclusive thinking, and it is political disaster.
Still, it is an easy cast of mind, and Trump loves it when progressives fall for it.
This blog has made the point that the swing voters are not "in the middle" because there aren't that many "middle" people and because leftist voters will abandon someone who appears to go to the middle. The swing voters up for grabs are the people who don't bother to vote.
That is the problem. Go to the center and lose the left. But estrange white Americans and working class Americans and you depress the turnout of the those huge groups. What is the solution? Re-define progressive, and re-define acceptable positions for progressives. Some of the heresies are actually OK. They aren't heresies.
Progressive candidates and activists who hope to win must recognize that they are flirting with a very dangerous rule of thumb as they clean out heretics, if they think that anything that appeals to conservatives must be bad. That is factually wrong, inconsistent with real progressive, inclusive thinking, and it is political disaster.
 |
| Trump enjoys a race war skirmish. |
This frame causes them to climb deeper into the tar pit of election loss. It also blinds them to the opportunities they have to win. Trump says outrageous things. Knee-jerk Democratic anti-Trump reactions are part of the Trump formula.
Progressive Democrats must be the anti-racist party and the pro economic justice party. Trump-style Republicans are the party that nurtures the white racial resentment and backlash vote. A Democrat would quickly lose support if he or she "compromised" on racism. That is Trump's turf. Let him have it.
But the rule-of-law turf can be up for grabs. Democrats cede that turf when they communicate that they are for an anything-goes attitude toward immigration and law breaking by their constituent allies, e.g. blacks and Hispanics. In their search for heretical backsliding, progressives have settled into thinking that calling out lawbreaking by their allies is an example of heresy.
It is not, or at least should not be. A Democrat who wants enforcement of immigration laws, plus fundamental immigration reform, need not embrace Trumpian racism. The Democratic leader can embrace law abiding good citizenship. He or she can accuse Trump of being the scofflaw, trampling on the dignity of Americans.
Trump has seized patriotism and policing of disorder as his cause. Democrats can seize it back. This isn't centrism. It is progressivism.
A Democratic candidate need not be considered to have "backslid" on racism if he or she opposes immigration scofflaws. Some progressives may resist this notion, but it is an opportunity for a Democratic candidate to make the liberal case that obedience to the law is liberal progressive. The law honors and protects foreigners who entered legally. It is more fair than an arbitrary system that puts law breaker and law obeyers in the same basket. An orderly immigration system preserves the opportunity for others to come to America. Obeying the immigration laws is an essential precondition of continued immigration. Otherwise, backlash by the worried and the easily spooked and the racists rises up and destroys immigration for everyone. Lax enforcement get us Trump.
The Democratic candidate who can win will sell this idea--then win. The Democratic candidate who falls into the lockstep of his progressive friends, excusing lawbreaking because it is done by "some of ours" will lose, because patriotic law obedience is a widespread American value.
We are seeing this play out in Virginia.
Progressive Democrats must be the anti-racist party and the pro economic justice party. Trump-style Republicans are the party that nurtures the white racial resentment and backlash vote. A Democrat would quickly lose support if he or she "compromised" on racism. That is Trump's turf. Let him have it.
But the rule-of-law turf can be up for grabs. Democrats cede that turf when they communicate that they are for an anything-goes attitude toward immigration and law breaking by their constituent allies, e.g. blacks and Hispanics. In their search for heretical backsliding, progressives have settled into thinking that calling out lawbreaking by their allies is an example of heresy.
It is not, or at least should not be. A Democrat who wants enforcement of immigration laws, plus fundamental immigration reform, need not embrace Trumpian racism. The Democratic leader can embrace law abiding good citizenship. He or she can accuse Trump of being the scofflaw, trampling on the dignity of Americans.
Trump has seized patriotism and policing of disorder as his cause. Democrats can seize it back. This isn't centrism. It is progressivism.
A Democratic candidate need not be considered to have "backslid" on racism if he or she opposes immigration scofflaws. Some progressives may resist this notion, but it is an opportunity for a Democratic candidate to make the liberal case that obedience to the law is liberal progressive. The law honors and protects foreigners who entered legally. It is more fair than an arbitrary system that puts law breaker and law obeyers in the same basket. An orderly immigration system preserves the opportunity for others to come to America. Obeying the immigration laws is an essential precondition of continued immigration. Otherwise, backlash by the worried and the easily spooked and the racists rises up and destroys immigration for everyone. Lax enforcement get us Trump.
The Democratic candidate who can win will sell this idea--then win. The Democratic candidate who falls into the lockstep of his progressive friends, excusing lawbreaking because it is done by "some of ours" will lose, because patriotic law obedience is a widespread American value.
We are seeing this play out in Virginia.
The campaign for Governor of Virginia has tightened up to an approximate draw amid the heavy advertising by Republican Ed Gillespie against sanctuary cities. The ads portray dangerous people who would supposedly be protected, if Virginia had sanctuary cities. They don't have them, but the ads have created a worry. Lt. Governor Ralph Northam is the Democratic nominee. Gillespie has heavy ads like this, linking illegals immigrants, crime, your personal safety, and Northam. It seems to be moving the polls. Watch.
Northam has made clear statements that he in fact does not support sanctuary cities. He is being accused of moving to the center. His political success will require that he explain his position as the triumph of progressive values, not their abandonment. He can do this, and indeed must do this. Otherwise progressives will abandon him and allow a Trump-backed candidate to win. Or he will look like a supporter of disorder, and allow a Trump-backed candidate to win.
There are two ways to lose, but there is one way to win.
Northam has made clear statements that he in fact does not support sanctuary cities. He is being accused of moving to the center. His political success will require that he explain his position as the triumph of progressive values, not their abandonment. He can do this, and indeed must do this. Otherwise progressives will abandon him and allow a Trump-backed candidate to win. Or he will look like a supporter of disorder, and allow a Trump-backed candidate to win.
There are two ways to lose, but there is one way to win.
No comments:
Post a Comment