RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Gray writes: "Americans need a reason to go to the polls - something that makes them feel like their vote matters. Something more than being anti-Trump. Something ideological."

Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate from Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke speaks to the crowd at his 'Turn Out for Texas' rally, featuring a concert by Wille Nelson, in Austin, Texas, on Sept. 29, 2018. (photo: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/AP)
Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate from Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke speaks to the crowd at his 'Turn Out for Texas' rally, featuring a concert by Wille Nelson, in Austin, Texas, on Sept. 29, 2018. (photo: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/AP)


Progressive Ideas Matter to Voters. So Why Do Democrats Fixate on the Identity of the Messenger?

By Briahna Gray, The Intercept

09 January 19

 

ust before the new year, Steve Phillips, senior fellow at liberal think tank Center for American Progress, filed paperwork to launch a Super PAC to support New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker’s anticipated 2020 run. The announcement raises a number of red flags, including about the choice to rely on Super PACs at a time when voters are increasingly skeptical of large campaign donations. But perhaps the most concerning issue is that Phillips’s involvement with Booker’s campaign may represent the further deprioritization of ideology among Democratic politicians.

Let me explain.

The dominant lens through which Philips understands politics is demographic. He is the author of “Brown is the New White,” a New York Times best-seller about how America’s growing nonwhite population is the key to the Democratic Party’s success. Phillips believes that Democrats should prioritize mobilizing nonvoting Americans of color (which it should). But he also argues that Democrats should not “waste money” appealing to white swing voters, derisively rejecting “conventional wisdom” that advocates for “empathy for the anxiety of moderate white voters.” According to Philips, because there is a “ceiling” of white support, courting white voters offers diminishing returns.

Of course, the “demographics as destiny” strategy didn’t pan out in the 2016 presidential election. To the extent that there is a ceiling for white voters set by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton didn’t reach it — nabbing only 75 percent of the white voters who backed Obama. If she had matched Obama’s numbers among white voters, she would have won, making it difficult to argue that fortifying the Obama coalition would be a “waste.”

The thing is, although much is made of the browning of America, the country is still 70 percent white, and electoral strategies that are wholly dismissive of that population set themselves at an unnecessary disadvantage. America’s “browning” is largely attributed to the fact that Hispanics constitute the largest growing ethnic group in the country. But a majority of Hispanics identify as white, and one third continue to support Donald Trump despite his nativist, anti-immigrant rhetoric.

And even if they didn’t so identify, melanin doesn’t guarantee Democratic support. Of the 4.3 million Obama voters who stayed home or voted for third parties in 2016, a third were black. So as important as it is to register voters, ensuring access to franchise is not enough. Americans need a reason to go to the polls — something that makes them feel like their vote matters. Something more than being anti-Trump. Something ideological.

And yet since 2016, the effort to understand the ideological inertia that motivated Trump’s victory has met resistance from establishment Democrats, many of whom, perhaps defensively, limit their analysis of 2016 to Trump’s open bigotry and Russian interference. Recently, this trend has reached absurd levels.

In the course of last month’s Twitter dispute over whether three articles criticizing Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke’s voting record constituted an unfair “attack” from the far left fans of Bernie Sanders, feminist blogger Amanda Marcotte argued that the famously no-nonsense and reclusive senator’s appeal is actually about his charisma, not his politics. “The evidence suggests that [Bernie] Sanders did well in the primaries, not because of his progressive views,” she tweeted, “but because his voters were attracted to a charismatic white guy they viewed as an outsider.” She argued that if charisma and whiteness were all it took to attract a Bernie-sized following, then Beto offers a younger, better option. “Beto is far more that future in 2020 than Bernie,” she wrote.

Journalist Jamil Smith offered a similarly reductive non-ideological take on Sanders’s popularity, suggesting recently that “a significant portion of Bernie’s support came from white guys unwilling to vote for a woman.” In O’Rourke, he argued, those voters might have found “a new white, male candidate.”

In fact, Sanders voters are the least likely to hold bigoted views about black people, according to a widely circulated study depicting the comparative racism of 2016 voters — most coverage of which excluded Sanders voters. Sanders also has the highest approval rating among nonwhites compared to other 2020 candidates. Ignoring Sanders’s long record of anti-racism stretching from civil rights-era protests to his recent bail reform bill, Smith cited the fact that 1 in 10 Sanders voters backed Trump as evidence that Sanders’s appeal is rooted in racism. But the fact that in 2008, Clinton voters were 2.5 times more likely to vote for John “I Hate Gooks” McCain over the first black president is rarely considered to be reflective of the racial equality bonafides of her backers.

Both of these arguments, so plainly errant as to feel like gaslighting, are part of a larger rhetorical trend toward divorcing voter preferences from ideology. Wittingly or not, the effect is to undermine the obvious power of progressive ideas. If Sanders’s appeal can be reduced to charisma, then he can easily be replaced by a younger, more charismatic candidate who is friendlier to big-money interests. If his support is the result of racism or sexism, then his political message can be dismissed as the fruit of that poisonous tree, and other, more diverse candidates can become powerful symbols for anti racism — even if their records betray their commitment to people of color.

As Peter Beinart recently observed in The Atlantic, “The best hope for Democrats who don’t want to purge corporations from the party might be a presidential candidate with a less confrontational economic message who enjoys widespread African American or Latino support. Booker could be such a candidate. So could Kamala Harris or O’Rourke. Which is why skirmishes like the one that pitted the Center for American Progress’s Neera Tanden against supporters of Bernie Sanders will likely only escalate in the year and a half to come.”

But here’s the thing: Most Americans do want to limit the reach of corporate influence.

In an increasingly polarized nation, Americans firmly agree that the system is rigged, its political institutions are failing the people, and that the American dream — already inaccessible to many due to structural prejudice — is increasingly out of reach even for the white men who, historically, have disproportionately benefited from it.

I’d argue that the most important American divide to keep in mind going into 2020 isn’t red versus blue, North versus South, coastal versus “flyover,” but insider versus outsider — what Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., renders as the bottom versus the top. The popularity of both Trump and Sanders (and arguably Obama in 2008) suggests that the real silent American majority is this constituency of the aggrieved. If Democrats ignore it, Trump will continue to satisfy many of these voters with nativism and bigotry. The alternative is for Democrats to speak more vividly to their specific concerns: The answer to “they’re taking our jobs” is a Green New Deal, not “America is already great.”

But power brokers in both parties have an interest in minimizing the currency of that broadly shared ideology.

Organizations like Third Way, a centrist think tank founded in 2005 to marry center-right economic policy with center-left social policy, have been leading the charge against ideology as a political organizing tool. In 2017, it commissioned a 23-city bus tour to collect empirical evidence about why Trump won — a “safari in flyover country.” But according to Molly Ball at The Atlantic, who covered the tour, Third Way’s conclusion that voters wanted moderation and pragmatism contrasted with what voters expressed on the ground: “All these centrist ideals,” said one Wisconsin cafe owner, “are just perpetuating a broken system.”

And recently, Third Way tweeted that Sanders’s “ideas were crushed in the midterms” and argued that “Democrats must say no to litmus tests” — in other words, ideological standards by which voters should judge candidates beyond “is a Democrat” or “isn’t one.

Last Thursday, the anti-ideological trend continued with a Washington Post op-ed by Terry McAuliffe, former governor of Virginia, Democratic National Committee chair, and close affiliate of the Clintons, who argued that “ideological populism” is “playing on Trump’s turf,” and that voters are looking for “realistic solutions.” A federal jobs guarantee, he argued, is “too good to be true,” as is universal free college. “Medicare for All” didn’t even get a mention in his piece. Instead, McAuliffe focused on expanding the Affordable Care Act and curbing high pharmaceutical prices — this despite the fact that 70 percent of all Americans, including a slim majority of Republicans, support “Medicare for All.” Sixty percent of Americans also support free college. And as of this spring, nearly half of Americans support a federal jobs guarantee.

These numbers indicate that the pragmatic approach is the progressive one — which explains, more than Sanders’s “charisma,” why many top 2020 contenders like Booker, Harris, and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., have shifted left over the last couple years. Voters also appreciate that even explicit commitments to politics can be undermined by monied interests, which is perhaps why these candidates have also taken the no corporate PAC pledge.

But the center-left too often rejects this framing. Rather than credit the critique of O’Rourke, which centered on his breach of a “no fossil fuel” pledge and frequent votes with conservatives — including votes that helped fossil fuel interests — as sincere, it has endeavored to characterize the criticism as a pre-textual attempt to defend Sanders’s status as a uniquely progressive vanguard. Rather than ask what standards the party should have — what litmus test should exist — it blithely blurs the lines, seeing political opportunity in ideological ambiguity.

But a bold, clear ideology is precisely what excites Americans. Look at Ocasio-Cortez, the democratic socialist whose social media feeds have become envy of the entire political establishment. Over the holidays, O’Rourke, Gillibrand, Harris, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., all tried to match the enthusiasm Ocasio-Cortez has piqued around her late-night livestreams during which she cooks dinner and chops it up about policy. But these attempts have fallen short. What these politicians don’t get is that Ocasio-Cortez’s magic isn’t in the medium. It’s in the message.

Ocasio-Cortez understands (more than most pundits) that her victory and subsequent popularity can’t be reduced to charisma or mere demographics. As she (sub)tweeted: “A few social media ideas for public servants looking to build an audience: Endorse Single-Payer Medicare for All. Hold Wall Street Accountable. Make Min Wage = Living Wage. . . Support a Federal Jobs Guarantee, Bail Out Student Debt, Legalize Marijuana & Explore Reparations, Baby Bonds.”

In direct contrast with Third Way’s warning against litmus tests, Ocasio-Cortez is a one-woman litmus test generator. When she takes to Instagram Live or Twitter, she’s setting new standards for transparency that feel fresh and unfamiliar to voters inured to the self-preserving conservatism of politicians. She’s not just cooking. She’s cooking with fire.

Unfortunately, that lesson is far from learned.

To many Democrats, the distinction between Sanders and other 2020 hopefuls, including O’Rourke, has become one without much difference. In a recent interview with NBC, Jon Favreau, Obama’s former speech writer, described O’Rourke, Sanders, Harris, and “others” who are likely to run all as “progressives.” Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden repeatedly bristles at any suggestion that the Sanders wing of the party represents a significant ideological departure from her own. “What are you talking about,” she tweeted in response to a journalist’s claim that CAP pulls the Democratic Party to the right. “You don’t get to define what is and is not progressive.”

But while no one writer is an authority on what makes a progressive, the word becomes meaningless if, like Tanden and Favreau, it’s applied evenly to an ideologically broad range of people.

Tanden, for example, would count Hillary Clinton and Justin Trudeau among progressives, despite the former’s reluctance to adopt what have become widely popular programs like single-payer health care and a $15 minimum wage, and the latter’s broadly centrist politics. CAP describes itself as “progressive,” but neither CAP nor its current chair, former Democratic Majority Leader Tom Daschle, have come out in support of “Medicare for All” — despite Daschle once considering single payer to be “inevitable.” Daschel is now a health care lobbyist who was recently named as a potential surrogate for a pharma-backed bipartisan campaign against “Medicare for All.” Is that the face of progressivism?

Adam Serwer at The Atlantic argued recently on Twitter that “Beto people are not irrational or superficial for looking for a candidate who appeals for non-ideological reasons.”

But choosing to support a candidate for reasons other than their ideology — their expressed policy prescriptions — is definitionally superficial. It’s also illogical when you consider that authenticity brings its own rewards. This is a lesson that needs to be learned sooner rather than later. It’s 2019 after all.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+9 # Porfiry 2019-01-09 10:10
Even being anti-Trump keeps him before us (see George Lakoff). We need a government strong in "of the people, by the people, for the people." Funny. 'Twas a Republican that said that!
 
 
+8 # bardphile 2019-01-09 12:07
Misleading title to a sound article--one of RSN's better recent postings.
 
 
+1 # Farafalla 2019-01-09 13:34
I agree. This is an excellent article that I will read twice because there are some major ideas in it.
 
 
+19 # MaggieB 2019-01-09 12:09
Great article-- thank you! I'll be showing it to my misguided "third way" friends.

Wonderful quote from AOC:
As she (sub)tweeted: “A few social media ideas for public servants looking to build an audience: Endorse Single-Payer Medicare for All. Hold Wall Street Accountable. Make Min Wage = Living Wage. . . Support a Federal Jobs Guarantee, Bail Out Student Debt, Legalize Marijuana & Explore Reparations, Baby Bonds.”

There are two aspects to AOC's and Bernie's appeal: endorse a solid progressive agenda, AND really mean it. Ideology and authenticity.
 
 
-5 # Depressionborn 2019-01-10 12:47
Quoting MaggieB:
Great article-- thank you! I'll be showing it to my misguided "third way" friends.

Wonderful quote from AOC:
As she (sub)tweeted: “A few social media ideas for public servants looking to build an audience: Endorse Single-Payer Medicare for All. Hold Wall Street Accountable. Make Min Wage = Living Wage. . . Support a Federal Jobs Guarantee, Bail Out Student Debt, Legalize Marijuana & Explore Reparations, Baby Bonds.”

There are two aspects to AOC's and Bernie's appeal: endorse a solid progressive agenda, AND really mean it. Ideology and authenticity.

how about simply removing gov from our lives?
 
 
+20 # Moxa 2019-01-09 12:10
Notice how the discussion among most establishment Democrats is about how to win: which voters to appeal to to get the most votes; which popular ideas they can latch on to to secure more support. Yet all of this must be done under the watchful eye of the big corporations that fund their campaigns.

What they fail to see is that behind the bold and truly populist programs of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez lies not strategy and calculation, but integrity, honesty, and real concern for people's needs. The others are trying to fake authenticity, and there's the difference.
 
 
0 # RLF 2019-01-14 07:58
"many top 2020 contenders like Booker, Harris, and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., have shifted left over the last couple years"

These are counting on the American voters inability to remember anything for more than two weeks. I certainly won't trust them any more than I do the "platform" being moved left for a candidate who might as well be a republican they are so friendly to big business!
 
 
+3 # Robbee 2019-01-09 13:13
Progressive Ideas Matter to Voters. So Why Do Democrats Fixate on the Identity of the Messenger?
Briahna Gray, The Intercept
09 January 19

- because charisma matters to voters? charisma rocks?

exhibit a - hillary clinton

exhibit b - al gore

exhibit c - barak obama

only one of these 3 won the electoral college, and he did it twice!

does alexandria lead elizabeth in either message or medium presence?

Briahna assumes what she sets out to prove!

on both message and medium, both women are quite excellent!

about harris and gillibrand, the book is not fully writ - as we learn more, we may like more? or less? who knows?

o'rourke is sorta dino? - what he appeals in medium, he lacks in message? - his baggage is his conservative voting record in congress?

meanwhile bernie is the model in medium and message, to which all progressives aspire! bernie rocks!
 
 
+10 # WorkingClass 2019-01-09 13:26
I think there are several answers to the question the title of this article poses. Having said that, one glaring reason is because the media makes it about personality and name recognition as determined by polling. The problem with name recognition is it is generated by media coverage. If the media focused more on who finances the various candidates, how it appears this impacts their voting record and what policies candidates support we would all be much better off.
 
 
+2 # dawill4 2019-01-09 19:43
Lets be clear. This party is 100% Corporate owned and has been since the 80's. Other than a few older, involved, Boomers that were around when big money took over this party all the generations since have only seen politics through the lens of their parties corporate political propaganda and the same goes for the Media at large. These Big Money Corporatists are not going to go down without a long and protracted fight. We have just as many blind and under informed Democrats as the the other side has blind and uninformed Republicans. It's just a different flavor that's all. We will have to fight every step of the way to change that media fed propaganda which has keept the status quo of the last 30+ years.
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2019-01-09 20:16
Democraps focus on identity politics because it's one way to avoid policy discussions, the same way they fixate on Trump to avoid addressing what's wrong with the party -- that they've moved so far right they're equivalent to the GOP of the 1980s.

They know the American people disagree with their pro-corporate agenda so they wrap themselves in self-righteous smoke-and-mirro rs bullshit.
 
 
+1 # Depressionborn 2019-01-10 13:58
Quoting librarian1984:
Democraps focus on identity politics because it's one way to avoid policy discussions, the same way they fixate on Trump to avoid addressing what's wrong with the party -- that they've moved so far right they're equivalent to the GOP of the 1980s.

They know the American people disagree with their pro-corporate agenda so they wrap themselves in self-righteous smoke-and-mirrors bullshit.

Hi Lib 1984
Half the repubs, [or more] are self centered thieves. Progressives have idealistic group goals. Me, I'l take the thieves. They are less honest but more dangerous.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN