Here's what the Democrats need to do to win

[KingOrfeo]

The Democrats need to embrace economic populism and downplay cultural liberalism.

This election has shown that the Dems can't win without the support of the white working class. (Yes, in terms of economic function and economic interest, there is only one transracial working class; but socioculturally, it is not so.) The white working class is, generally speaking and with regional variations, socially conservative. (For that matter, working-class blacks and Latinos and others tend to be socially conservative too.) Anything the Dems can do to win them over, without entirely abandoning their principles, is worth doing. Backing off on, say, gay marriage is not total abandonment of principles. WRT social issues, liberals should simply take comfort in the fact that time is on their side, albeit on a generational time-scale. The old religious-traditionalist view among the American population is slowly fading, even where religious belief itself is not. Someday opposition to gay marriage will seem quaint. Likewise with (very eventually) abortion. Gun control is a different matter -- I know of no generational differences in attitudes there (perhaps someone can correct me) -- but, let's face it, liberals can afford to lose that one, indefinitely; gun violence, horrible and tragic as it is, is not an existential threat to America, nor is the gun culture necessarily an impediment to enactment of an economically liberal agenda. (Some RWs who talk of a "Second Amendment solution" assume it is just such an impediment, but they are both moronic and marginal, even within the RW; liberals can safely ignore that whole mess.)

Economic populism means, to some degree, embracing economic nationalism and rejecting the neoliberalism that has ruled the Democratic Party at least since 1992. It means having something approaching a real national industrial policy (something at which the Obama Admin has at least made a few half-assed attempts as emergency measures). It means doing whatever will grow industry and provide jobs in the U.S. It means coming down hard on outsourcing and offshoring. And it means treating immigration as a jobs issue rather than a racial/cultural issue. (Yes, I know it is mainly a racial/cultural issue to the RW, far more than it is a jobs issue; but liberals are not obliged to let them define the terms of the debate.)

It also means rehabilitating the concept of "class warfare" and spreading the truth that middle-class Americans, working-class Americans, working-poor Americans and underclass Americans all have a common enemy, or at least opponent-in-interests, in the overclass (very definitely including overclass liberals). It means demanding redistributive taxation (using exactly that word unashamedly).

Here's why. Let's look at the Pew Political Typology (2005 version; the Pew Center is planning to do another study late this year and publish the results in early 2011; but, past iterations have shown no very dramatic change from one to the next). Americans break down, politically, into the following nine broad groups (click link for fuller descriptions):

ENTERPRISERS
9% OF ADULT POPULATION
10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 81% Republican, 18% Independent/No Preference, 1% Democrat (98% Rep/Lean Rep)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: As in 1994 and 1999, this extremely partisan Republican group's politics are driven by a belief in the free enterprise system and social values that reflect a conservative agenda. Enterprisers are also the strongest backers of an assertive foreign policy, which includes nearly unanimous support for the war in Iraq and strong support for such anti-terrorism efforts as the Patriot Act.

SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES
11% OF ADULT POPULATION
13% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 82% Republican, 18% Independent/No Preference, 0% Democrat (97% Rep/Lean Rep)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: While supportive of an assertive foreign policy, this group is somewhat more religious than are Enterprisers. In policy terms, they break from the Enterprisers in their cynical views of business, modest support for environmental and other regulation, and strong anti-immigrant sentiment.

PRO-GOVERNMENT CONSERVATIVES
9% OF ADULT POPULATION
10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 58% Republican, 40% Independent/No Preference, 2% Democrat (86% Rep/Lean Rep)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: Pro-Government Conservatives stand out for their strong religious faith and conservative views on many moral issues. They also express broad support for a social safety net, which sets them apart from other GOP groups. Pro-Government Conservatives are skeptical about the effectiveness of the marketplace, favoring government regulation to protect the public interest and government assistance for the needy. They supported George W. Bush by roughly five-to-one.

UPBEATS
11% OF ADULT POPULATION
13% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 56% Independent/No Preference, 39% Republican, 5% Democrat (73% Rep/Lean Rep)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: Upbeats express positive views about the economy, government and society. Satisfied with their own financial situation and the direction the nation is heading, these voters support George W. Bush's leadership in economic matters more than on moral or foreign policy issues. Combining highly favorable views of government with equally positive views of business and the marketplace, Upbeats believe that success is in people's own hands, and that businesses make a positive contribution to society. This group also has a very favorable view of immigrants.

DISAFFECTEDS
9% OF ADULT POPULATION
10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 68% Independent/No Preference, 30% Republican, 2% Democrat (60% Rep/Lean Rep)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: Disaffecteds are deeply cynical about government and unsatisfied with both their own economic situation and the overall state of the nation. Under heavy financial pressure personally, this group is deeply concerned about immigration and environmental policies, particularly to the extent that they affect jobs. Alienated from politics, Disaffecteds have little interest in keeping up with news about politics and government, and few participated in the last election.

LIBERALS
17% OF GENERAL POPULATION
19% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 59% Democrat; 40% Independent/No Preference, 1% Republican (92% Dem/Lean Dem)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: This group has nearly doubled in proportion since 1999. Liberal Democrats now comprise the largest share of Democrats. They are the most opposed to an assertive foreign policy, the most secular, and take the most liberal views on social issues such as homosexuality, abortion, and censorship. They differ from other Democratic groups in that they are strongly pro-environment and pro-immigration.

CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS
14% OF ADULT POPULATION
15% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 89% Democrat, 11% Independent/No Preference, 0% Republican,(98% Dem/Lean Dem)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: Religious orientation and conservative views set this group apart from other Democratic-leaning groups on many social and political issues. Conservative Democrats' views are moderate with respect to key policy issues such as foreign policy, regulation of the environment and the role of government in providing a social safety net. Their neutrality on assistance to the poor is linked, at least in part, to their belief in personal responsibility.

DISADVANTAGED DEMOCRATS
10% OF GENERAL POPULATION
10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 84% Democrat; 16% Independent/No Preference, 0% Republican (99% Dem/Lean Dem)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: Least financially secure of all the groups, these voters are very anti-business, and strong supporters of government efforts to help the needy. Minorities account for a significant proportion of this group; nearly a third (32%) are black, roughly the same proportion as among Conservative Democrats. Levels of disapproval of George W. Bush job performance (91%) and candidate choice in 2004 (82% for Kerry) are comparable to those among Liberals.

BYSTANDERS
10% OF ADULT POPULATION
0% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 56% Independent/No Preference, 22% Republican, 22% Democrat
BASIC DESCRIPTION: These Americans choose not to participate in or pay attention to politics, or are not eligible to do so (non-citizens).

Now, of these:

The Enterprisers are the GOP's real base. The Dems can't hope to get their votes and shouldn't bother.

The Social Conservatives are the Tea Party's real base. (It's really more a religious-right movement than the economic-libertarian movement it purports to be.) Aggressive economic populism from the Dems might drive a further wedge between them and the mainstream GOP; and if they form a third party that actually gets into Congress, the Dems will find at least some common ground with them on economic issues.

Pro-Government Conservatives, even more, should be attracted by an economic-populist agenda not coupled with social liberalism.

The Upbeats are not entirely in the GOP camp now. The Dems simply need to avoid driving them in that direction.

The Disaffecteds should be very amenable to an economic-populist agenda, it's what they've been waiting for all their lives.

Liberals are a core the Dems can't lose, because where else are they going to go? Ralph Nader? I hope that lesson is learned by now, and Liberals will stick by the Dems even if the Dems downplay social liberalism.

Conservative Democrats are a group the Dems need to avoid alienating at all costs. I shouldn't be surprised if some went for Tea Party candidates this year. But economic populism, decoupled from social liberalism, would win them back.

Disadvantaged Democrats stand to benefit from economic populism more than anyone -- the message should go out that the Democratic Party's future direction is about people like them.

The Bystanders are always a tough nut to crack, but what goes for Disadvantaged Democrats also goes for most of them.

If the Democrats take this approach, they can build a semipermanent winning coalition.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Lind has a good salon about this today.

Long story short, ain't gonna happen. The cultural divide is too great and has been excaerbated too much.

 

[Ham Murabi]

KO,
Congrats on the think piece.
First question regards gun control: What do you propose? What level of gun control are you comfortable with?

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

KO,
Congrats on the think piece.
First question regards gun control: What do you propose? What level of gun control are you comfortable with?

There is no level of gun control with which I am personally not "comfortable" -- because I see no down side. Looking around the world, we see many countries such as the UK and Japan where gun control is strict, and yet they remain free countries by any reasonable standard, and the gun-control regime actually works -- i.e., even if "only outlaws have guns," nevertheless there seem to be very few guns around even in outlaws' hands. However, I do not regard the whole business as very important, for reasons explained in the OP. I do think the Second Amendment should be repealed -- not because I favor any particular gun-control regime, but because I believe "gun rights" do not deserve constitutional protection the way free speech does; the whole business should be handled by the ordinary political-legislative process. On those terms, I suppose it would best be handled at the state level, reflecting regional variations in cultural attitudes towards personal firearms ownership.

 

[grunabona]

There is no level of gun control with which I am personally not "comfortable" -- because I see no down side. Looking around the world, we see many countries such as the UK and Japan where gun control is strict, and yet they remain free countries by any reasonable standard, and the gun-control regime actually works -- i.e., even if "only outlaws have guns," nevertheless there seem to be very few guns around even in outlaws' hands. However, I do not regard the whole business as very important, for reasons explained in the OP. I do think the Second Amendment should be repealed -- not because I favor any particular gun-control regime, but because I believe "gun rights" do not deserve constitutional protection the way free speech does; the whole business should be handled by the ordinary political-legislative process. On those terms, I suppose it would best be handled at the state level, reflecting regional variations in cultural attitudes towards personal firearms ownership.

You think the Second Amendment should be repealed? How do you expect to be taken seriously after making a statement like that?

 

[KingOrfeo]

You think the Second Amendment should be repealed? How do you expect to be taken seriously after making a statement like that?

For one thing, because it is irrelevant to the discussion (I addressed it only because Ham raised the topic). For another, since it will never happen, it is an attitude you can afford to tolerate, even in someone you might actually vote for.

 

[grunabona]

For one thing, because it is irrelevant to the discussion (I addressed it only because Ham raised the topic). For another, since it will never happen, it is an attitude you can afford to tolerate, even in someone you might actually vote for.

Could you tolerate, and possibly vote for, someone who advocated the repeal of the First Amendment?

 

[Sonny Limatina]

This thread, being deeply considered, well-written and defended intellectually rather than vitriolically, is bound for failure.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Could you tolerate, and possibly vote for, someone who advocated the repeal of the First Amendment?

We already have certain de facto repeals of the First Amendment. If I stand in a crowded room and announce that tomorrow I intend to kill the president, odds are pretty good I'll be detained for that speech--which reflected no actual or immediate harm or danger to anyone in the room.

If I use my blog to call, over and over again, for someone to shoot the president, I will be dropped by my host and investigated by the FBI.

If someone I intended to vote for took the position that the 1st Amendment is irrelevant in the Internet age and should either be recrafted or dropped altogether, I would not use it as a reason to withhold my vote. I would listen and consider the argument.

 

[KingOrfeo]

This thread, being deeply considered, well-written and defended intellectually rather than vitriolically, is bound for failure.

Mmmm . . . bound . . .

 

[grunabona]

We already have certain de facto repeals of the First Amendment. If I stand in a crowded room and announce that tomorrow I intend to kill the president, odds are pretty good I'll be detained for that speech--which reflected no actual or immediate harm or danger to anyone in the room.

If I use my blog to call, over and over again, for someone to shoot the president, I will be dropped by my host and investigated by the FBI.

If someone I intended to vote for took the position that the 1st Amendment is irrelevant in the Internet age and should either be recrafted or dropped altogether, I would not use it as a reason to withhold my vote. I would listen and consider the argument.

Do you feel the same way about Supreme Court precedents such as Roe v. Wade?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Do you feel the same way about Supreme Court precedents such as Roe v. Wade?

Badly reasoned decision, in my opinion as a lawyer; should be reversed. Of course, that would make abortion subject to the ordinary political-legislative process without constitutional protection . . . which would be the worst electoral disaster for the GOP in decades. I think you'll find surprisingly few Americans will vote for an avowedly anti-abortion party if they think it has a chance of actually outlawing abortion.

 

[grunabona]

Badly reasoned decision, in my opinion as a lawyer; should be reversed. Of course, that would make abortion subject to the ordinary political-legislative process without constitutional protection . . . which would be the worst electoral disaster for the GOP in decades. I think you'll find surprisingly few Americans will vote for an avowedly anti-abortion party if they think it has a chance of actually outlawing abortion.

Well, at least you're being intellectually honest and consistent. Have to give you that.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Do you feel the same way about Supreme Court precedents such as Roe v. Wade?

You appear to think you're chipping away at something here. Your time might be better spent considering the initial post and making a relevant response to it.

For what it's worth, I do not think abortion should be a federal issue.

 

[grunabona]

You appear to think you're chipping away at something here. Your time might be better spent considering the initial post and making a relevant response to it.

For what it's worth, I do not think abortion should be a federal issue.

Well, at your request, I'll say it seems to me anyone who is both socially conservative and fiscally conservative would probably be better off voting Republican and therefore not likely to be enticed into contributing to the Democratic stone soup.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Well, at your request, I'll say it seems to me anyone who is both socially conservative and fiscally conservative would probably be better off voting Republican and therefore not likely to be enticed into contributing to the Democratic stone soup.

The topic is what the Democrats need to do to win. I think "fiscal conservatives" in the sense you probably mean (i.e., not so much anti-deficit as government-minimalist) should be written off at the outset, like the Enterpriser group that largely includes them.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I'm a Conservative Democrat, I think.

They better get to work not alienating me.

 

[Sean Renaud]

It's too bad about the Senate remaining Democrat. I hear that if you campaign for two years that the world is ending, while fillabustering any attempt to fix things that you get rewarded.

 

[off2bed]

Where does Constitution give the Federal Government any of these powers?

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Where does Constitution give the Federal Government any of these powers?

It is not only WRT federal government that the Democratic Party needs to adopt the direction I have outlined.

However, in answer to your question (which is not the sort of question candidates for office are, generally speaking, fairly obliged to answer): Since the federal government has exercised all such powers at one time or other in the past (or does so now, just the wrong way), and since court challenges have always been routine, I suppose there must be case law finding bases in the Constitution somewhere. And certainly there is no doubt at all of the federal government's constitutional authority to pursue a protectionist trade policy and impose tariffs or other restrictions on imports. And the federal income tax constitutionally can be just as redistributive as Congress wants it to be.

 

[firespin]

So if KO recommends this, and since KO is always wrong...

...I'd assume they need to do just the opposite, right?

Promoting class warfare has never worked, and it never will.

And I though KO said that the Dems already HAD a semi-permanent winning coalition.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Promoting class warfare has never worked, and it never will.

Tell it to Pat Buchanan. Much of this would appeal to him and his America First Party. Buchanan at least sees clearly that one reason we can't get immigration reform passed is that the corporations want the cheap labor, and that our continued military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan also has at least somewhat to do with business interests. Buchanan not conservative enough for you?