The Democrat Party Needs Reform

Donald Trump is an opportunist. While many demean him for it, he showed how an outsider can become the most powerful politician in this country simply by responding to “the people”.

Before Trump came around the Republican party was the party of NeoCons, run by people who embraced a combination of “individual freedom” policies (partially constrained by social conservatism expressed as religious or traditional values), libertarianism (limited regulation and full-on capitalism) and globalism (no tariffs, open borders and America should use its status as the only superpower to secure its trading relationships around the world). While Republicans talked about fiscal responsibility, it was more talk than practice.

Bill Clinton was the last traditional moderate Democrat to lead the party. He differed with Republicans by removing the constraints on individual freedom imposed by religious and traditional values, he embraced a greater level of regulation, he was less globalist and promoted secure borders. He toyed with socialize healthcare, but backed away when America rejected it. At the time, many people said the Democratic party was simply a slightly more “regulated”, socially liberal, slightly more protectionist version of the Republican party. And that was true, which is why Clinton worked so well with a Republican Congress.

With GW Bush’s win in 2000, the Democratic party which had been moderated by the “southern Democrats” changed dramatically. In 2004 the southern “candidates” for the Democratic nomination were crushed by the northern “candidates”, Kerry and Dean. Who were in turn defeated by GW Bush, but in the process, it became crystal clear, that the Democratic party now belong to those Democrats from the Northeast, West Coast, and the midwestern urban voters of Illinois (Chicago), Michigan (Detroit), Minnesota (Minneapolis/St Paul), and Wisconsin (Milwaukee).

If Democrats were going to win, they needed to consolidate the voters in the ethnically and racially diverse cities. Obama, a freshman Senator from Illinois saw this. Like Trump, Obama was an opportunist. His voting record was not particularly inspiring, but what he did offer Democrats was a candidate that was intelligent, a minority, and skilled at knitting together urban identity groups into coalitions. And over the next eight years, a new Democratic party emerged. More socialistic, more progressive, but like Trump less ideologically pure and more willing to embrace policies that worked for the different constituencies that Obama wove together.

Obama was a brilliant strategist and as result he crushed McCain in 2009. The Republicans never really grasped that Obama had outmaneuvered them politically and so they stuck with an ideology that appealed to a decreasing number of Americans for the next eight years and not surprisingly, the Republicans had their collective clocks cleaned by Obama. With Hispanics behind him, Obama picked off several southwestern states and with the unions and black vote, he picked off some additional Midwestern and southern state votes. It was game over.

Then Hillary Clinton came along. Perhaps one of the most “elitist” candidates to run for President in recent history. She snubbed and insulted large segments of the American population especially blue-collar workers with her rhetoric. While Obama was a brilliant strategic opportunist, Hillary Clinton was a progressive liberal ideologue. Unfortunately for her, Donald Trump broke through and essentially used an “Obama” strategy but in his case largely targeting “blue collar workers” with promises of protectionism and tough immigration enforcement.

In one fell swoop, he swept the key Midwestern swing states from blue to red. At the ideological level, Trump’s new “populist ideology” was very attractive to “blue collar workers” at a time Clinton basically disparaged many of them. Meanwhile, the black and Hispanic vote remained aligned with the Democrats, but many were uninspired by Clinton and so stayed home.

In 2020, the Democrats made a fatal error. They effectively sold out to the progressive liberal wing of the party to ensure the support of the Sanders/Warren faction. That was a huge mistake. America is not a progressive liberal country, the Northeast and West Coast are progressive liberal regions, but the rest of the country is far more conservative.

Democrats placed too much faith in their 2020 victory as confirmation of their ideology. Democrats did not win in 2020 because of their progressive liberal ideology, but in spite of it. Many voters voted against Trump, not against his policies. In fact, Trump’s popularism made in roads among historical Democratic constituencies, but the better ground game of Democrats to get out the “mail in” vote and the strong rejection of women towards Trump’s character offset those gains.

In 2024, Democrats have gone back to the same playbook. Demonize Trump and hope the media can convince people they are better off. But the truth is that the American people are not better off, especially those key Midwestern blue collar workers. In addition, legal Hispanics are increasingly finding illegal immigrants competing for their jobs and housing. Even blacks historically, the most loyal identity group with respect to the Democratic party are beginning to drift away as policy is beginning to matter more to them than party loyalty. Blacks have historically been the swing vote for Democratic victories, erosion of this dependable voting block could spell doom for the party in the near term.

What Democrats are missing or do not want to admit, is that progressive ideology simply does not sell to most Americans other than those in their traditional stronghold regions of the country.

I am using the map above rather than 2020 map because I think it is a better reflection of where the ideology of the two parties “sell”. I would not be surprised to see a return to this outcome in 2024 with Nevada flipping red as Biden’s ideology does not resonate with working people or Hispanics in that state.

And so, while Biden’s age is clearly a big factor in this election, so is ideology. If Trump wins as polls suggest, he will not only serve four more years, but his “policies” like Obama’s that are designed to draw new “identity” groups into the Republican party are likely to force Democrats to “reform” or become relegated to being a regional party (if they are not mostly there already).

Unlike Trump, whoever follows Trump is more likely to be acceptable to suburban women (since character not policy is influencing their vote at this time), that will put added pressure on Democrats to reform.

So, looking past, 2024 and the “post” Trump era, there are two critical unknowns. Will powerful but suppressed forces in the Republican party try to reassert more traditional Republican ideology (as seen in some of the material coming out of Conservative “think tanks”)? And will the “elitists” in the Democratic party try to preserve their progressive liberal ideology under which they use their influence in Washington to manage the country for the “greater good”, while enriching themselves or will they revert back to being more “worker friendly”.

If the Republicans fully commit to Trump’s platform and not that by more conservative elements within the party, they will likely hold the White House for 12 years. If a Democratic version of “Trump” or another “Obama” reformer arises in the party to move it back towards the constituencies it is presently alienating, a new Democratic party will offer a completive alternative to the Republican party.