My favorite data point, Andy beshear, in support of your argument. He’s shown moral leadership on a supposedly losing cultural issue and won in a red state. Dems need more clear policies too, like “free bus” is easy for the uninformed to understand whereas a “credit that is refunded on your taxes if you work full time and have children” is so indirect as to never give credit to Dems. Losing the enhanced child tax credit killed Biden because people all of a sudden lost something direct and tangible and they blamed Biden. (Scaring polling also showed maj blamed Biden for loss of roe abortion access which points to comms problems) His progressive policies were long term and we needed short term/direct benefits. ( not his fault manchin and sinema killed bbb reforms that would have been direct wins). Eg in AZ? Universal free childcare, or free school lunch
I have long railed against “radical centrists.” Your term—“reactionary centrists”—is a serious upgrade. Thanks!
I find it’s impossible to distinguish the behaviors and choices of the reactionary centrist from those of the capitulator and collaborator. They serve to empower the wrong by denigrating the good. In politics, they manifest in the Dems’ cult-like devotion to polling: “Allow me to consult the oracle before I choose a tie to wear.” That’s one reason Mamdani was so appealing. He didn’t seem poll-tested.
Reactionary centrist is a great term for that type of political hack. On the national level, you need to be in the middle of the field, but I’d argue that Spanberger, Sherrill, and Beshear securely in the middle. Democrats aren’t going to win on by campaigning culture war issues. But when Republicans start throwing around culture war red meat, there’s no need to throw anyone under the bus. Just remind people that “minority being attacked by Republicans” are Americans trying to live their life and that you are working to make life better for all Americans. James Carville is years past his expiration date.
I usually hate broad critiques of "the left". But to your point I think it's valid to point out that Biden/Harris didn't win after being arguably the most progressive admin since LBJ or FDR. What the wide, disjointed and ill-defined left needs to learn how to do is take a victory lap while not becoming complacent. I'm not saying touting Biden's achievements would've had electoral success. We might have been too far gone in terms of the media/information environment for it to have worked then. But going forward, and even outside of electoral concerns, we have to learn how to take a W and use it as a springboard to even more. Part of proving our stuff works on the merits is showing its success, and that sadly doesn't happen on its own in this awful media environment.
At the end of the day, centrism = stagnation and protection of the establishment. If government is to provide services for the people in exchange for taxes, I think the masses have finally—FINALLY—realized that seat-warming is not the same as governing, and voting blue no matter who is not resulting in policies that work for everyone. And characterizing Democratic Socialism as “extreme” is patently laughable, when pretty much every wealthy country in the world has some form of it.
Maybe a way to reframe tactical concerns regarding electoral politics comprises not as much arguing policy merits, but demonstrating — demonstrating! — leadership, leadership in service of policy. We might benefit generally from considering policy nuances the province of managers, who aren’t implicitly leaders. My casual observation is that managers have some — limited — electoral success in blue states (think MA or MN, but red and purple states respond more to leadership traits, ones that abide in a more visceral, less technocratic plane.
This goes to the problem of swing voters; they simply don’t engage much with policy, if at all, we’re finding. The people (like us and like our maga/RW/gop counterparts) who do engage with policy, in the vast majority of cases, have their minds made up most firmly regarding tribal affiliation and won’t deviate therefrom, and will reliably vote accordingly, virtually every time. The energy costs required to move the few marginal exceptions to this model wouldn’t seem to be worth expending.
In contrast, politicians who succeed in capturing the imaginations, and consequent votes, of swing voters are the ones whom swing voters (and habitual non-voters) empirically see, hear, and feel actively fighting, passionately and courageously. Period. This means committing, putting aside fear of alienating one’s target audience, and standing up forthrightly, without palpable calibration, against institutionalized dysfunction and cynicism: “I might not agree on all the issues, but I like the cut of that one’s jib.” Or something?..
This isn’t to propose that leaders needn’t concern selves with policy, only that they need only select, for rhetorical purposes, one to three key problems to solve, have one to three reasonably credible tactics to describe how they envision achieving those solutions (including maybe giving a good sense of who the managers are to whom they’ll delegate policy nuances), and to maintain a posture of steadfastness, confidence, and good cheer, that is to say “leadership.”
Thinking about Fetterman- I actually donated some to his first Senate campaign. Imagine the betrayal I feel now. If the republicans have a good idea, and I’m still waiting to see one, we should back it. Otherwise, I don’t see how throwing in with the right and furthering their goals is going to do anything but alienate your base, as you have clearly shown.
My favorite data point, Andy beshear, in support of your argument. He’s shown moral leadership on a supposedly losing cultural issue and won in a red state. Dems need more clear policies too, like “free bus” is easy for the uninformed to understand whereas a “credit that is refunded on your taxes if you work full time and have children” is so indirect as to never give credit to Dems. Losing the enhanced child tax credit killed Biden because people all of a sudden lost something direct and tangible and they blamed Biden. (Scaring polling also showed maj blamed Biden for loss of roe abortion access which points to comms problems) His progressive policies were long term and we needed short term/direct benefits. ( not his fault manchin and sinema killed bbb reforms that would have been direct wins). Eg in AZ? Universal free childcare, or free school lunch
Well said!
I have long railed against “radical centrists.” Your term—“reactionary centrists”—is a serious upgrade. Thanks!
I find it’s impossible to distinguish the behaviors and choices of the reactionary centrist from those of the capitulator and collaborator. They serve to empower the wrong by denigrating the good. In politics, they manifest in the Dems’ cult-like devotion to polling: “Allow me to consult the oracle before I choose a tie to wear.” That’s one reason Mamdani was so appealing. He didn’t seem poll-tested.
Reactionary centrist is a great term for that type of political hack. On the national level, you need to be in the middle of the field, but I’d argue that Spanberger, Sherrill, and Beshear securely in the middle. Democrats aren’t going to win on by campaigning culture war issues. But when Republicans start throwing around culture war red meat, there’s no need to throw anyone under the bus. Just remind people that “minority being attacked by Republicans” are Americans trying to live their life and that you are working to make life better for all Americans. James Carville is years past his expiration date.
I usually hate broad critiques of "the left". But to your point I think it's valid to point out that Biden/Harris didn't win after being arguably the most progressive admin since LBJ or FDR. What the wide, disjointed and ill-defined left needs to learn how to do is take a victory lap while not becoming complacent. I'm not saying touting Biden's achievements would've had electoral success. We might have been too far gone in terms of the media/information environment for it to have worked then. But going forward, and even outside of electoral concerns, we have to learn how to take a W and use it as a springboard to even more. Part of proving our stuff works on the merits is showing its success, and that sadly doesn't happen on its own in this awful media environment.
At the end of the day, centrism = stagnation and protection of the establishment. If government is to provide services for the people in exchange for taxes, I think the masses have finally—FINALLY—realized that seat-warming is not the same as governing, and voting blue no matter who is not resulting in policies that work for everyone. And characterizing Democratic Socialism as “extreme” is patently laughable, when pretty much every wealthy country in the world has some form of it.
Maybe a way to reframe tactical concerns regarding electoral politics comprises not as much arguing policy merits, but demonstrating — demonstrating! — leadership, leadership in service of policy. We might benefit generally from considering policy nuances the province of managers, who aren’t implicitly leaders. My casual observation is that managers have some — limited — electoral success in blue states (think MA or MN, but red and purple states respond more to leadership traits, ones that abide in a more visceral, less technocratic plane.
This goes to the problem of swing voters; they simply don’t engage much with policy, if at all, we’re finding. The people (like us and like our maga/RW/gop counterparts) who do engage with policy, in the vast majority of cases, have their minds made up most firmly regarding tribal affiliation and won’t deviate therefrom, and will reliably vote accordingly, virtually every time. The energy costs required to move the few marginal exceptions to this model wouldn’t seem to be worth expending.
In contrast, politicians who succeed in capturing the imaginations, and consequent votes, of swing voters are the ones whom swing voters (and habitual non-voters) empirically see, hear, and feel actively fighting, passionately and courageously. Period. This means committing, putting aside fear of alienating one’s target audience, and standing up forthrightly, without palpable calibration, against institutionalized dysfunction and cynicism: “I might not agree on all the issues, but I like the cut of that one’s jib.” Or something?..
This isn’t to propose that leaders needn’t concern selves with policy, only that they need only select, for rhetorical purposes, one to three key problems to solve, have one to three reasonably credible tactics to describe how they envision achieving those solutions (including maybe giving a good sense of who the managers are to whom they’ll delegate policy nuances), and to maintain a posture of steadfastness, confidence, and good cheer, that is to say “leadership.”
Thinking about Fetterman- I actually donated some to his first Senate campaign. Imagine the betrayal I feel now. If the republicans have a good idea, and I’m still waiting to see one, we should back it. Otherwise, I don’t see how throwing in with the right and furthering their goals is going to do anything but alienate your base, as you have clearly shown.