Round and Round

Here we go again. Centrist and Progressive Democrats are each blaming one another for Vice President Harris losing this month’s election. Or, are they?

Some liberals are already blaming “dumb workers for not knowing their own interests.” But sneering won’t revive the fortunes of a party that desperately needs to rebuild its bond with “the common man and woman.” There is no quick fix, said Alex Gabriel in The Hill. But the first step, clearly, is to accept that the “progressive agenda, while vital in many ways, has become increasingly untethered from the concerns of the average voter.” “Progressives aren’t the problem,” said Bob Hennelly in Salon. On issue after issue—health care, climate, gun control, housing— working-class voters prefer progressive policies to Republican ones. Those millions of votes were there for Harris’ taking, until she decided to campaign with former GOP Rep. Liz Cheney and run as a Glock-wielding, pro-business centrist.
Controversy of the week: Democrats: Where does the party go from here?

Media outlets love a good conflict story, and The Week is no exception. And it’s true that it seems that every four years, the Centrist and Progressive wings of the Democratic Party turn their attentions to attempting to blackmail one another into “unity.” But if one actually reads the entirety of Alex Gabriel’s and Bob Hennelly’s columns, they're both pretty much saying the same thing: that the Democrats ignored the interests of poor/“working class” voters, and paid for it in the election. Where they differ is in their perception of the Democratic “élites” that they have each set out to criticize; Mr. Gabriel thinks that they're too Progressive, while Mr. Hennelly’s convinced that they’re too Centrist. What I’m curious about is whether they're referring to the same group of people.

But maybe that’s where the solution lies; in being able to talk about, and to, different groups of people at the same time. Both Mr. Gabriel and Mr. Hennelly are more or less convinced that the answer lies in the entirety of the Democratic Party moving either more towards the Center or father to the Left. Possibly, however, what’s needed are simply different strokes for different folks, as the saying goes.

I suspect that part of the reason why Donald Trump was able to win again was that he’s able to be what people want him to be. The Trumpists I know don’t all seem to have voted for the same person; each of them has a different priority, but all of them feel that the second-time President-Elect is the person who can make it happen.

Perhaps what the Democrats need to do is stop having two wings of their party that unnecessarily position themselves as mutually exclusive. This could go a long way towards allowing candidates to avoid needing to walk a tightrope that’s mainly geared at not offending critical groups to the degree that they “stay home” on Election day. Because it doesn't seem necessary.

It means speaking to the issues that matter most: the rising cost of living, access to quality healthcare, economic mobility, and a future that feels within reach.
“Why Democrats must seriously reconsider the progressive strategy”

“Saving the democracy must be a Third Reconstruction where people are paid a living wage—where people have health care—where public education is fully funded and where voting rights are protected and expanded.”
“Progressives aren’t the problem in the Democratic coalition”

These don’t seem as if they’re that far apart. There doesn’t appear to be an intractable conflict here. Maybe the focus on who Messrs. Gabriel and Hennelly feel are calling the shots is resulting in them, like a lot of other Democrats, talking past one another, and giving observers the opportunity to play up a conflict where there needn’t be one.