US Democrats need to go back to being a party that believed in government
A few months after the Democrats' bitter defeat in the 2024 presidential elections, the party convened an executive committee meeting. Instead of taking a long hard look at the reasons for their poor performance, the meeting devolved into a round of self-congratulations. 'We had the best convention ever.' 'We raised more money than ever.' 'We had the best team and the best co-operation between the White House, the Harris campaign, and the party'.
When one esteemed party leader raised her hand reminding everyone that 'we lost' and suggested that the party needed an autopsy to understand what went wrong, her idea was met with indignation. 'What do you mean an 'autopsy'? We're not dead!'
True, the party isn't dead, but its 2024 performance was poor. It lost the White House and the Senate. And polls now show Democrats with their lowest favourability ratings in recent history.
Despite denying the need for an autopsy, during the past few months press reports have included advice from 'Democratic party operatives' as to what the party should do moving forward and reports of studies commissioned by one or another party entity analysing the 2024 defeat. The consensus that has emerged is that Democrats need to move to the 'centre' and forego radical or 'leftist' political ideas.
The lesson that Democrats need to learn is that 'the left' is not primarily defined by where you stand on social issues
The problem with this assessment is twofold. First, most of the operatives speaking out or the groups commissioned to conduct the studies (reportedly costing $30 million) are the same consultants who dug the hole Democrats now find themselves in. They do not understand the voters they lost or what needs to be done to win them back.
Second, their definitions of 'centrist' and 'leftist' are inventions to suit their own biases. It's not enough to say, 'We need to stop being so 'woke,' and instead focus on what voters care about,' especially when they don't really know what voters do care about.
For years, these same consultants have argued that Democrats need to move to 'the centre' of American politics, which they define as an amalgam of conservative-leaning fiscal/economic policies and more liberal-leaning on some (but not all) social issues. There was no overall theme to this mish-mash of ideas, and candidates who listened to the consultants often tied themselves in knots trying to appeal to voters without a coherent message.
While pre-Trump, Republicans would focus on the Reagan mantra of lower taxes and smaller government, when one asked Democrats what they stood for, they would read off a litany of issues (reproductive rights, social justice, environment, immigration, gun laws, etc) leaving it up to voters to find the forest from the trees. Because Republicans' 'smaller government, lower taxes' only increased income inequality and threatened the economic well-being of most voters, they avoided the details on these matters and instead sought to divert voters' attention by elevating and exaggerating one or another of the Democrats' stances on social issues. 'Democrats want open borders.' 'Democrats are soft on crime.' 'Democrats want to abolish police.' 'Democrats want transgender athletes to compete in women's sports.'
Each time Republicans would lay these traps, Democrats would take the bait, focusing on these issues instead of developing an overarching message that would reach a majority of voters.
Twenty-five years ago, I co-authored a book with my brother John Zogby titled What Ethnic Americans Really Think. It was based on polling John's firm had done measuring the political attitudes of voters from several US ethnic groups: Italians, Arabs, Hispanics, Asians, Jews and Africans. Despite the deep differences that existed amongst the communities included in the study, what came through was that their views converged on several issues. Strong majorities in all groups were proud of and had an emotional tie to their heritages and were attached to their hometowns and their family connections. This was true for those who immigrated to and those born in the US.
Contrary to the consultants' 'wisdom,' all of these communities supported what can be seen as progressive economic/fiscal policies. For example, overwhelming majorities, from the mid-80 per cent range to mid-90 per cent, wanted the federal government to: help underwrite health insurance; raise the minimum wage; impose penalties on polluters; oppose a regressive taxation system; strengthen social security and medicare, and support public education. Large majorities also wanted: campaign finance reform; gun control; and a US unilateral ban on nuclear weapons testing.
On social issues, the views of the voters from each of these ethnic groups reflected a more nuanced approach. Smaller majorities, but still majorities, supported the death penalty, limits on abortion, school vouchers and opposition to racial preferences in hiring.
So in reality, the 'centre' is not being more moderate on economic issues and more liberal on social issues because the economic and fiscal issues have the support of almost nine in 10 voters and are the foundation for building a majoritarian party. At the same time, instead locking out, demeaning, and refusing to engage with voters with divergent views on social issues, Democrats need to respectfully discuss these issues within the party.
The lesson that Democrats need to learn is that 'the left' is not primarily defined by where you stand on social issues. Instead, unlike Republicans, Democrats must define themselves as the party that understands the government's positive role in creating an economy and programmes that create jobs and opportunities for working and middle class families – Black, Asian, Latino and White ethnics.
When they don't embrace these concerns, they cede this ground to Republicans, who despite their regressive policies now claim to represent the working class while charging that Democrats only represent elites.
This doesn't mean that Democrats should ever abandon their commitment to the range of social and cultural issues party leaders have long embraced as critical for our diverse democratic society. But these issues can't define the party.
For Democrats to win, they must reclaim their history as the party of Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and, yes, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. That they are the party that believes that government has a role to play in lifting up those who need a helping hand, and providing for the working classes and middle classes of all ethnic and racial communities.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Palestine activist Mahmoud Khalil to be released on bail, judge rules
Palestine activist and Columbia graduate Mahmoud Khalil must be released on bail, a US judge ruled on Friday. The major court decision comes after back-and-forth legal challenges over the past few months. '[The] petitioner is not a flight risk,' Judge Michael Farbiarz told litigators, according to Courthouse News. 'He's also not a danger to the community.' The same judge ruled last week that the White House could not use US foreign policy interests to justify its detention of Mr Khalil. But President Donald Trump's administration said it had no plans to release him. 'The court did not order respondents to release petitioner Mahmoud Khalil,' US Department of Justice lawyers wrote in a last-minute appeal, implying they could detain Mr Khalil on other grounds. 'An alien like Khalil may be detained during the pendency of removal proceedings regardless of the charge of removability.' The government explained that Mr Khalil had to convince the Department of Homeland Security to release him, and that he had failed to do so. The DOJ also asked that if Mr Farbiarz insisted on releasing Mr Khalil, they could pursue other legal options to keep him detained. The judge acquiesced. 'The respondents have now represented that the petitioner is being detained on another, second charge,' he wrote, adding that Mr Khalil retains the option of requesting bail through an application to an immigration judge presiding over his case. On Wednesday, Judge Farbiarz said Mr Khalil's legal team had shown that his continued detention was causing irreparable harm to his career, his family and his right to free speech. Mr Khalil, a legal US resident who played a prominent role in pro-Palestine campus protests last year, has been held in Louisiana since his March arrest. The State Department revoked his green card under a little-used provision of immigration law granting the Secretary of State the power to seek the deportation of any non-citizen whose presence in the country is considered adverse to US foreign policy interests. The White House has accused Mr Khalil of spreading Hamas propaganda during the protests. A judge in Louisiana previously ruled that the US government could proceed with efforts to deport him. He was denied leave in late April to attend the birth of his first child. His arrest was part of a Trump administration crackdown on so-called anti-Semitism on university campuses. The administration has deemed pro-Palestine protests to fall under this umbrella.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Does Trump have the authority to declare war on Iran?
President Donald Trump's announcement that he would make a decision in two weeks about whether to directly involve US forces in Israel's war on Iran has reignited a longstanding constitutional debate on exactly what military powers America's leader has. The President has indicated in recent days that the US could carry out strikes against Iran in support of its ally. Israel began attacking Iran on June 13, saying it aimed to prevent its archenemy from developing nuclear weapons. Iran retaliated with missile and drone strikes on Israel. According to the US Constitution, it's the Congress - the House of Representatives and the Senate - that has the power to declare war. This stretches back to 1973, when Congress passed the War Powers Act - also referred to as the War Powers Resolution - which sought to prevent the executive branch from declaring war without congressional approval. It was initiated shortly after a series of presidents unilaterally escalated the Vietnam war, specifically when Richard Nixon ordered the bombing and invasion of Cambodia without a green light from Congress. Yet there are several loopholes that various US presidents have used since the passage of the War Powers Act to exercise their ability to influence military policy. There's nothing in the legislation that prevents the White House from assisting other countries, with the current example being Israel. Some legal experts have also pointed out that the US Constitution, specifically Article II Section 2, states that "[the] President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" - that is, the White House has a legal precedent to try and mobilise the US military to some extent. "There is a constitutional ambiguity between the role of Commander-in-Chief and the congressional power to declare war," said Timothy Kneeland, a professor of history, politics and law at Nazareth University in upstate New York. Prof Kneeland said that shortly after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, George W Bush, president at the time, sought and obtained authorisation from Congress to use military force in both Afghanistan and Iraq, These so-called Authorisations to Use Military Force (AUMF) have since been used to justify actions against ISIS and Hezbollah, as well. "It may be that President Trump will use this as a pretext should he decide to attack Iran, which has been identified with supporting Hezbollah, listed as a terrorist organisation in the US," Prof Kneeland said, noting that laws passed after 9/11 blurred clarity on who could declare war. It could also be a matter of semantics, with the US providing assistance to Israel without ever mentioning war. Yet there is already pushback from Democrats and Republicans, as politicians seek to head off any potential unilateral decision by Mr Trump to move ahead with military action against Iran. In the Senate, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine introduced a resolution seeking to make debate and a vote compulsory before any military strike on Iran. And in the House of Representatives, Republican Thomas Massie introduced a similar resolution related to the situation in Iran. Yet resolutions like this, compared to laws, often lack enforcement mechanisms. Prof Kneeland also points out that constitutionally, Mr Trump could easily block them. "These are subject to President Trump's veto power and would require a two-thirds majority to override the presidential veto," he said. "With both the House and Senate in the hands of the Republicans, who overwhelmingly support President Trump, this seems highly unlikely." So, even with the 1973 War Powers Act, the ball appears to be in Mr Trump's court. Iran, meanwhile, is holding talks with European powers as its war with Israel enters a second week.
The National
4 hours ago
- The National
Back in the crossfire: Iraq's Tehran-backed militias prepare to support Iran if US intervenes
An air of uncertainty surrounds US President Donald Trump and potential American involvement in Israel's war against Iran. While Tehran has long been an adversary of Washington and a source of international concern over its nuclear ambitions, Middle East governments and the broader international community have warned the Americans that joining and fuelling the conflict could have catastrophic consequences. As Mr Trump considers whether or not to directly involve US forces, one of Iran's largest support networks remains deeply embedded in Iraq. Powerful militant groups, tied to Tehran through years of military and strategic co-operation, are watching developments closely and escalating their threats of military action to back their ally. It is a big risk and Iraq would pay a heavy price, which it cannot afford. It just started rebuilding its security and stabilising the country Iraqi government source Sources close to the Iraqi government said some of the most prominent militant groups have confirmed this week that US military intervention to support Israel would trigger a retaliatory response. 'They told the government that they would go in and that they disagree with the decision to stand by,' one source said. That is a reference to Baghdad's decision, at the start of this war, not to be part of it. The government does not want to turn Iraq into another battlefield for a regional conflict. One source said that the Iraqi government has 'warned the militias against any involvement,' fearing that it would result in further escalation. 'It is a big risk and Iraq would pay a heavy price, which it cannot afford,' the source added. 'It has just started rebuilding its security and is stabilising as a country.' Iraqi militant factions operate on their own terms, but military action to support Iran would not be straightforward and could result in severe consequences, the government sources added. 'The US know where those factions are based and can easily eliminate them if they chose to,' one source said. 'They can target them one by one.' Hassan Janabi, a former Iraqi ambassador and minister, told The National: 'It is clear that armed factions will see US involvement as an opportunity to carry out attacks on US sites, including the embassy in Baghdad.' Although direct American involvement would not be a surprise, it would 'increase the anger of the Iraqi public, which is hostile to Israel and America, as well as the Iran-aligned armed factions that are ideologically and strategically tied to Tehran,' Mr Janabi added. He added that the Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al Sudani is attempting to portray 'solidarity with Iran by condemning the Israeli aggression, because it is ultimately unable to confront the military escalation taking place'. The threat of a full regional war is more serious now than at any point in the past two years. If Mr Trump sends warplanes to support Israel, Iraqi militias are unlikely to be passive. While the threat isn't entirely new and the scale and potential impact of this type of involvement is uncertain, these Iraqi factions, known as Fasael, have undoubtedly been adopting a more serious tone as the conflict intensifies and enters a second week. Powerful Shiite leader Moqtada Al Sadr said on Friday that any decision to attack at any time and against any country "is entrusted to the decision issued by the American president present at any given time. 'This means that the unjust decision will, by divine wisdom and divine power, bring calamity and loss upon the man who issued this decision,' he said. 'It will bring calamity and loss upon him, as has already happened.' On Thursday, the Iran-backed Shiite militia Kataib Hezbollah in Iraq vowed to attack US military bases across the Middle East if the US enters the war. 'We affirm, with greater clarity, that if the United States enters this war, the 'crazy' Trump will lose all the trillions he dreams of seizing from this region,' militia leader Abu Ali Al Askari said in a statement. He added that operational plans had already been drawn up. The escalating threats come after White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Mr Trump will make a decision 'within the next two weeks' and would depend on the outcome of more talks with Iran. 'In light of the substantial chance that negotiations with Iran may or may not take place in the near future, the President will make his decision within the next two weeks.' Just 24 hours earlier, Mr Trump said he had not yet made up his mind, continuing to project an air of strategic ambiguity and avoiding firm public commitments. 'I may do it,' he told reporters. 'I may not do it.' For now, all the indications suggest that Washington is 'reluctant to get directly involved,' one source told The National. 'Trump has repeatedly stated his desire to de-escalate conflicts in the region and end foreign entanglements.' 'Survival mode' Baghdad's view may not align with other capitals in the region, where concern is mounting over a potential US strike on Iran and subsequent retaliation that would make American bases a target. Another Tehran-backed armed faction in Iraq, the True Promise Corps, has also threatened to join the war, intensifying fears that the conflict could spread rapidly across the region. The group, part of a shadowy coalition known as the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, issued a warning Monday that it would strike Israeli targets and its regional allies. 'We declare that all the sites and camps of the entity [Israel] and anyone who supports it in the region are targets for us,' said the group's leader, Mohammed Al Tamimi, in a statement posted on X. Renad Mansour, director of the Iraq Initiative at London's Chatham House, believes Iraq's armed factions are in 'survival mode'. 'The situation has gone beyond their control,' he said. 'They don't know where it's going or where it will end, and it's about surviving effectively.' Baghdad does not want to create instability following years of calm. However, 'what's happening now is risking the equilibrium that Iraq has enjoyed,' Mr Mansour added. 'So for this reason, armed groups – certainly senior PMF groups – have tried to rhetorically signal their support for Iran and condemn Israel.' Meanwhile, Iran has also warned of unleashing 'hell' in the region if the US intervenes militarily. So far, Baghdad believes Washington has little appetite for a direct war. Iraq's powerful militias played an active role early in the Israel-Gaza war, launching attacks on US bases and claiming that they fired rockets towards Tel Aviv. But that momentum shifted following a quiet, unannounced truce that led Iran-backed factions to halt attacks on US forces. The truce, involving Washington, Baghdad and Tehran, was reached in February 2024. It remains to be seen whether or not the US will stand by and watch Iranian missiles continue to strike Tel Aviv. Standing by runs counter to the US government's recent rhetoric about 'hitting hard' and its repeated warnings over Iran's nuclear threat, especially following five failed nuclear talks.
