I think you're correct--we are massively over-focused on this apparent shift, which is really about internal Democratic success in areas that are already largely Democratic-leaning. Who moves the middle will decide the next national election (assuming we have one). I do think that folks are tired of the way things have been the last few years and are looking for someone who will fight for something that looks like normalcy. That's tough to do. Though a lifelong Democrat, I can't think of a single national Democratic figure whom I would support for president without having to hold my nose. Of course, I've had to do that a lot over the past few cycles. But I'm also pushing 75 and am likely not at all a typical Democratic voter any more--too old.
I actually don’t think the pursuit of the center should be an end in itself. If you seek nothing except the center, you end up being defined solely by what you are not, and what you won’t stand for rather than what you will. We can say what we want about the extremist Republicans from the Tea Party forward, but they never paint themselves into that corner, whereas the tactical centrists do it every time. In that respect, the emergence of a genuinely competitive leftist party would be clarifying, no matter how successful they are short-term and whether they call themselves Democrats or not.
I also don’t believe that a “fighter” is ever the only thing, or the most important thing, an anti-establishment movement is looking for. What anti-establishment activists usually want is to make public participation more meaningful, more widespread, and more predictive of legislative and policy outcomes. Instead of seeking the center as an end in itself, I see an opening for a left wing that insists that only its own renewal could fulfill this exact promise of popular politics.
@Austin - I have to disagree with your statement that "if you seek nothing except the center, you end up being defined solely by what you are not, and what you won’t stand for rather than what you will." As a centrist, I am defined by my belief in capitalism tempered by prudent but restrained government regulation. An unwavering commitment to free speech is a centrist position as both extremes punish those whose speech differs from theirs. A centrist believes that there can be good ideas on both sides of the aisle and that those who think differently not only deserve to be respectfully heard, but to be taken seriously. Balancing national and community security, through the military, the police, and the "carceral system", with individual rights and freedoms is a quintessential centrist view; one to which I hold fast. To be a centrist today is to attempt to find realistic, pragmatic, and workable answers to our community problems that can attract support from a wide swath of people, not just the admiration of our echo chamber. Being a centrist is not simply a matter of rejecting one wing or the other; centrism, moderation, pragmatism all have positive positions that can and should attract support across the board.
I also think sadly, there is an increase in antisemitism in New York, on both the right and the left but since most Jewish voters have notoriously been liberal democrats it stings more. The Jewish editorialists and political leaders considered more “ establishment “ needed to speak out harshly against the right wing and immoral Netanyahu administration and in my mind only Thomas Friedman did this repeatedly. Most Americans had no idea that Netanyahu supported Hamas with oodles of money, because his nasty racism included a hatred of the “ two state solution”. He stupidly believed he could control Hamas because his vitriol toward Palestinians blinded him and clear thinking went right out the window. He is to blame in large part for the Hamas massacre of innocent civilians and like Trump, he is a narcissistic, power hungry, womanizer that wants to stay out of jail because he is also a grifter.
The problem is incumbents in both parties are more concerned with the politics of DC power brokers than the concerns of their constituent-voters. Incumbency is the problem they carry into a close election. Thus, voters who want to send a message to the party must vote out the incumbent in their district or state. The message is when a party loses, then the Washington folks who come in the next Congress must vote for new leadership. Re-electing a Nancy Pelosi or keeping a Chuck Schumer is a vote to end their congressional career.
The elephant in the room (where do all the elephants come from?) is the extent of corporate funding of politicians. Establishment institutional Democrats cannot serve corporate interests AND their constituents.
Koch Industries has seen a large inflow to its coffers thanks to Trump's failed Iran war, despite whatever ideological differences Charles Koch has with Trump. One hand washes the other.
Also the book Dark Money makes the case that the Tea Party was largely orchestrated by Koch and his ilk and their money. Not an organic movement but the creation of a cadre of disgruntled voters.
Voters and citizens want legislation, not politicians running around saying, "I/We are bigger or better than you/they are." Enough of the talk; show some action. That's what Zohran Mamdani has done in NYC, and it appears that the residents like the results.
Any time there's a popular movement from the Democrats it seems there are comparisons to the Tea Party. I watched Rick Santelli's famous rant on CNBC which was primarily anger at Obama's Homeowner's Affordability and Stability Plan to the effect "we paid for our mortgages, why should we pay for other people's". The original Tea Party was mainly focused on economics, and was critical of both Obama and GW Bush.
That changed pretty quickly though as the Tea Party was largely embraced and to my mind co-opted by the GOP. That included co-opting by social conservatives, who added principles far from the original economic intent.
So will the new DSA wing of the Democratic Party be embraced by the party as a whole? My guess is they form a coalition with the progressive caucus/"squad" members. I expect the Democrats to win the House by a narrow majority but the progressive coalition will have outsized influence similar to the past GOP Freedom Caucus combined with GOP fringe members like Lauren Boebert and MTG.
I think you're correct--we are massively over-focused on this apparent shift, which is really about internal Democratic success in areas that are already largely Democratic-leaning. Who moves the middle will decide the next national election (assuming we have one). I do think that folks are tired of the way things have been the last few years and are looking for someone who will fight for something that looks like normalcy. That's tough to do. Though a lifelong Democrat, I can't think of a single national Democratic figure whom I would support for president without having to hold my nose. Of course, I've had to do that a lot over the past few cycles. But I'm also pushing 75 and am likely not at all a typical Democratic voter any more--too old.
I actually don’t think the pursuit of the center should be an end in itself. If you seek nothing except the center, you end up being defined solely by what you are not, and what you won’t stand for rather than what you will. We can say what we want about the extremist Republicans from the Tea Party forward, but they never paint themselves into that corner, whereas the tactical centrists do it every time. In that respect, the emergence of a genuinely competitive leftist party would be clarifying, no matter how successful they are short-term and whether they call themselves Democrats or not.
I also don’t believe that a “fighter” is ever the only thing, or the most important thing, an anti-establishment movement is looking for. What anti-establishment activists usually want is to make public participation more meaningful, more widespread, and more predictive of legislative and policy outcomes. Instead of seeking the center as an end in itself, I see an opening for a left wing that insists that only its own renewal could fulfill this exact promise of popular politics.
@Austin - I have to disagree with your statement that "if you seek nothing except the center, you end up being defined solely by what you are not, and what you won’t stand for rather than what you will." As a centrist, I am defined by my belief in capitalism tempered by prudent but restrained government regulation. An unwavering commitment to free speech is a centrist position as both extremes punish those whose speech differs from theirs. A centrist believes that there can be good ideas on both sides of the aisle and that those who think differently not only deserve to be respectfully heard, but to be taken seriously. Balancing national and community security, through the military, the police, and the "carceral system", with individual rights and freedoms is a quintessential centrist view; one to which I hold fast. To be a centrist today is to attempt to find realistic, pragmatic, and workable answers to our community problems that can attract support from a wide swath of people, not just the admiration of our echo chamber. Being a centrist is not simply a matter of rejecting one wing or the other; centrism, moderation, pragmatism all have positive positions that can and should attract support across the board.
Hmm, want to run for President? If you could get your name on the ballot, I would vote for that.
I also think sadly, there is an increase in antisemitism in New York, on both the right and the left but since most Jewish voters have notoriously been liberal democrats it stings more. The Jewish editorialists and political leaders considered more “ establishment “ needed to speak out harshly against the right wing and immoral Netanyahu administration and in my mind only Thomas Friedman did this repeatedly. Most Americans had no idea that Netanyahu supported Hamas with oodles of money, because his nasty racism included a hatred of the “ two state solution”. He stupidly believed he could control Hamas because his vitriol toward Palestinians blinded him and clear thinking went right out the window. He is to blame in large part for the Hamas massacre of innocent civilians and like Trump, he is a narcissistic, power hungry, womanizer that wants to stay out of jail because he is also a grifter.
The problem is incumbents in both parties are more concerned with the politics of DC power brokers than the concerns of their constituent-voters. Incumbency is the problem they carry into a close election. Thus, voters who want to send a message to the party must vote out the incumbent in their district or state. The message is when a party loses, then the Washington folks who come in the next Congress must vote for new leadership. Re-electing a Nancy Pelosi or keeping a Chuck Schumer is a vote to end their congressional career.
The elephant in the room (where do all the elephants come from?) is the extent of corporate funding of politicians. Establishment institutional Democrats cannot serve corporate interests AND their constituents.
Koch Industries has seen a large inflow to its coffers thanks to Trump's failed Iran war, despite whatever ideological differences Charles Koch has with Trump. One hand washes the other.
Also the book Dark Money makes the case that the Tea Party was largely orchestrated by Koch and his ilk and their money. Not an organic movement but the creation of a cadre of disgruntled voters.
Many of those grievances have their roots in things the Pugs have done.
Voters and citizens want legislation, not politicians running around saying, "I/We are bigger or better than you/they are." Enough of the talk; show some action. That's what Zohran Mamdani has done in NYC, and it appears that the residents like the results.
Any time there's a popular movement from the Democrats it seems there are comparisons to the Tea Party. I watched Rick Santelli's famous rant on CNBC which was primarily anger at Obama's Homeowner's Affordability and Stability Plan to the effect "we paid for our mortgages, why should we pay for other people's". The original Tea Party was mainly focused on economics, and was critical of both Obama and GW Bush.
That changed pretty quickly though as the Tea Party was largely embraced and to my mind co-opted by the GOP. That included co-opting by social conservatives, who added principles far from the original economic intent.
So will the new DSA wing of the Democratic Party be embraced by the party as a whole? My guess is they form a coalition with the progressive caucus/"squad" members. I expect the Democrats to win the House by a narrow majority but the progressive coalition will have outsized influence similar to the past GOP Freedom Caucus combined with GOP fringe members like Lauren Boebert and MTG.
DeGette: 15 TERM, not 15 YEAR, incumbent
Thanks for catching -- I’ve corrected.