Democrats’ intra-party battle isn’t about left vs. moderate. It’s about who is listening to voters.
Abdul El-Sayed’s victory over Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI) in the battle to be Michigan’s Democratic Senate nominee has been classified as a battle between the progressive and moderate wings of the party. A lot of the coverage was viewed through the prism of the party establishment, which had thrown its weight behind Stevens. In absolutely, totally unbiased language, The New York Times phrased the choice for voters this way: “Do they want a senator who will work with Democratic leaders in Washington and occupy a middle lane? Or one who will push for progressive causes like ‘Medicare for all’ and ending U.S. aid to Israel?” Yes, choose between someone who will “work with leaders” vs. someone who will “push” crazy ideas. Related A squishy statement is all it takes for Republicans to agree to confirm Todd Blanche The problem with this framing (besides being unfair) is that it simply misunderstands where voters are coming from these days. In many ways, the problems that the Democratic establishment faces are the result of being unable to understand just how differently Democratic voters view the world compared to party leaders. The usual left-right party divide has been jumbled all beyond recognition. The New York Times should know as much. In a poll conducted for the paper and published last May, nearly half of Democratic voters wanted the party to move to the center, but a majority didn’t think the party was too left or right. A whopping 49% had a favorable view of socialism. Dive deeper every day Join our newsletter for thought-provoking commentary that goes beyond the surface of LGBTQ+ issues Subscribe to our Newsletter today CNN published a poll last month with similar results, in which 80% of Democrats said replacing the party leadership would be for the better. In the CNN poll, 54% said that the party would do better if it moved to the left and the exact same number said it would do better if it moved to the middle (yes, that means at least around 10% believed the party would do better if it moved either way). Clearly, the results are confusing if you look at things strictly from a narrow definition of left and right. But the fact is the poll results, as well as the string of successes progressive candidates have had this primary season, are a sign that Democratic voters view the issues very differently than the media and the party establishment. For one thing, the media has been harping since Kamala Harris’ loss that the party has gone too far to the left. Trans issues have been the handy cudgel for which to beat the Democrats, with lots of pixels spilt over how they represented how Democrats lost voters. Indeed, would-be presidents, like California Gov. Gavin Newsom, are happy to beat the party over the head with that issue, trashing trans people in the process. But if you ask voters, as the Times poll did, whether the party is too far to the left, the response of a majority is no. The call to move to the center may just be a reflection of the complaints that voters heard that being too far left is why the party lost. What the Democrats have yet to learn is that what once seemed far out politically isn’t any more. Like Trump voters, Democratic voters think that the status quo doesn’t work for them. “Democrats, like the rest of the electorate, think the system is corrupt, broken, and unfair, and they’re looking for people with the willingness and the strength to overturn it,” wrote Dan Pfeiffer, a former senior advisor to President Obama. “Nearly nine in ten respondents think the country’s economic system is unfair to most Americans. More than eight in ten think the political and economic system either needs to be torn down completely or undergo major changes.” And who is telling them they are right? Progressive candidates. They do not carry the same baggage that establishment candidates do. In El-Sayed’s case, that meant focusing on Stevens as a captive to outside interests, in particular AIPAC, the pro-Israel political action committee. AIPAC poured nearly $32 million dollars into the Michigan campaign, in an effort to boost Stevens and stop El-Sayed. El-Sayed was outspent by an eleven-to-one margin, but he portrayed all the money pouring into Stevens’ campaign as a sign that she was a captive of corporate interests. Stevens didn’t help her case by taking a moderate approach to data centers. She favored having them in Michigan, with appropriate safeguards to ensure the centers pay for the electricity they use and fork over taxes. That kind of careful proposal is just out of touch with the overwhelming anger, from both left and right, over the impact of data centers on communities. What Democratic voters are looking for are people who are willing to shake things up. They agree on basic things: better health care coverage, higher taxes on corporations, breaking up monopolies. They don’t want marginal changes. They want the system fixed, and that requires not looking like you are a captive of the system. It means fighting, which is what Trump promised in no uncertain terms. (Of course, believing Trump would fight for anyone but himself was delusional.) That’s why candidates like El-Sayed and Zohran Mamdani keep succeeding. It’s why people bought into Graham Platner’s candidacy, despite the sea of red flags surrounding him. Just because a progressive is succeeding with Democratic voters doesn’t guarantee an election even in a dismal year for Republicans. The big test will be in Wisconsin, where Francesca Hong has a huge lead in the gubernatorial primary. Hong is further left than other progressive candidates, having in the past called for defunding or abolishing not just the police, but prisons and the US Senate, as well as canceling Thanksgiving. She has backtracked or modified to some extent her past statements, although whether voters buy that in November remains to be seen. Firing up voters and governing are two different things. Medicare for All is a wonderful idea, but it is the political equivalent of Mt. Everest in terms of how punishing the effort to reach that goal would be. But you have to start somewhere. Meanwhile, Democrats in the Senate seem afraid to exercise any power. Late Friday, the Senate passed a stopgap funding bill that was hammered out by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) by a lopsided 90-6 vote. As the Times put it, “The move came more than a month before the spending deadline, reflecting an eagerness in both parties to avoid a messy fight before the midterm elections.” The Democrats got some concessions in the bill, but you would think that heading into the midterms they would want to use the threat of a government shutdown to highlight all the things that they want to change. Instead, they dodged that fight. A shutdown is painful and destructive, but it is leverage that the Democrats just don’t want to use. At the same time, they gave Collins a big fat gift, allowing her to declare herself a bipartisan peacemaker when instead Democrats should be doing everything to defeat her. Fox News gloated, “[Senate Minority Leader Chuck] Schumer caves, hands Republicans shutdown win after months of uncertainty.” Sadly, many Democrats would have to agree. Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.
/https://tf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com/filer_public/7a/9e/7a9e040d-1494-44cc-80c9-a1d2bcbed012/saber-toothed-cat.jpg)
Arabic
French
Spanish
Portuguese
Deutsch
Turkish
Dutch
Italiano
Russian
Romaian
Portuguese (Brazil)
Greek