All of Syck's suggestions would seem to be about establishing a new and different cadre of elites that somehow will be more attractive to rural voters without actually interacting directly with those rural voters. Before the last election, anyone driving through rural America would see multitudes of Trump flags, signs and banners in front of homes and even businesses. Establishing new think tanks and journals will not cause rural voters to identify that strongly with candidates put forward by the Democrats.
As boring and tedious as it sounds to the DNC, the best way to win over rural voters is to field candidates who can and do win local elections by addressing the concerns of rural voters.
"Once the party of the working class, many blue collar Americans in the heartland now see Democrats as the party of out-of-touch social elitism."
Gee, and it only took 50 years for them to realize the Democratic Party had been body-snatched by Progressives who consider them obsolete, irrelevant, and - dare we say it? - deplorable.
Even the Republicans used to have working-class and middle-class voters in the past. Also, even the Republicans were party of the education before the Civil Rights movement.
I guess my main concern with the author's position is that he is simply reworking the party's biggest mistake, and its most prominent failure without changing much. The Democratic Party has been a top-down party for a generation now, and the key proposals here all top-down as well.
The success of the conservative movement is not due as much to its elites as to its grass roots: religious groups, civic organizations, school boards, and on up the chain. They were increasingly inflamed by the excesses of the Democrats who are now taking their orders from -- and terrified by -- The Groups. And none of The Groups -- organized labor; the Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD; groups claiming to represent Latinos, Blacks, Women, etc., etc., etc. -- actually represent anyone other than their own top-down leadership. How many of those groups have been elected by their supposed constituencies?
The change the Democratic Party needs is to better understand the electorate in general, not just the leaders of their groups. It is that Donald Trump and MAGA (at their best and most responsible) are primarily responding to. But The Groups are so blinded by the worst of Trump and MAGA (and there's a lot of that) they cannot get past the demands of their own advocacy mission to listen to what they're actually saying in public, and how it is being heard politically.
In short, the Democratic Party is now seen as an advocacy organization itself, rather than as a political party. It is only when they can actually see and hear what they sound like to the middle of the electorate that they will be able to change. Until then, I expect we'll be seeing more proposals like this one that just continue paddling in a circle.
I don’t know that it can be a movement without a solid intellectual foundation to unify around, particularly in economics and policy. Who are the Milton Friedmans and and Friedrich Hayeks that can drive effective policy solutions? For that matter, what are the problems that they are trying to solve? I like Larry Summers and Jason Furman a lot, I see them as calm and knowledgeable centrists, but is that where the Democratic Party is right now?
There are many who early on identified the problem with the party, but few that I am aware of that have a cohesive and relatable world view. Trump is bad is not one. Neither is Republicans are bad. It works in the primary, but not elsewhere. Tariffs might work among farmers and union workers, but I don’t see them as worthwhile or as part of any type of unifying message. The Democrats don’t need another Cross of Gold speech.
The thing is that much of the rural American and the Rust Belt got very rural and very rusty because of populism = mythology, romantic ideas, bad demands and expectations from the government, greed for subsidised, etc. So "progressive conservatism" cannot be the future because such policies are both inefficient, destructive and so costly in the USA that already has lot of debt on the national level
Populism and centrism are opposing ideas and processes. Also, populism cannot benefit more Americans because it rejects the individual and the general society in favor of certain groups. Even worse, work is being reduced around the world due to processes such as automation and robotization. Thereby, if Dems want a better future they should focus more on others than the working-class individuals and promote better politics as basic income and cooperatives.
One of many problem with "American jobs" is that it is based on myths. Millions of jobs in the USA depend on global and regional interactions, flows, cooperation between humans and organisations. Jobs do not have nationalities
Tariffs do not create jobs or contribute to some jobs for special interests. If you think tariffs are good for the economy, why not impose them on state levels? Tax extra stuff from Michigan entering California. Or why not even between cities? If they are so "rooted in local communities" they could also argue for tariffs and migration controls between cities and towns or?
The movement that Professor Syck describes sounds a lot like the Center-Right party that I wish Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger and others like them would form to replace the Republicans.
One might long for a return to the days of quiet sanity, but for the next while we must endure the battle of the fanatics. Think AOC mud wrestling with MTG. Hey ... that might be fun.
All of Syck's suggestions would seem to be about establishing a new and different cadre of elites that somehow will be more attractive to rural voters without actually interacting directly with those rural voters. Before the last election, anyone driving through rural America would see multitudes of Trump flags, signs and banners in front of homes and even businesses. Establishing new think tanks and journals will not cause rural voters to identify that strongly with candidates put forward by the Democrats.
Agreed! The only way the Democrats can win is by going into rural communities with an agenda that deals with their concerns.
As boring and tedious as it sounds to the DNC, the best way to win over rural voters is to field candidates who can and do win local elections by addressing the concerns of rural voters.
"Once the party of the working class, many blue collar Americans in the heartland now see Democrats as the party of out-of-touch social elitism."
Gee, and it only took 50 years for them to realize the Democratic Party had been body-snatched by Progressives who consider them obsolete, irrelevant, and - dare we say it? - deplorable.
Even the Republicans used to have working-class and middle-class voters in the past. Also, even the Republicans were party of the education before the Civil Rights movement.
I guess my main concern with the author's position is that he is simply reworking the party's biggest mistake, and its most prominent failure without changing much. The Democratic Party has been a top-down party for a generation now, and the key proposals here all top-down as well.
The success of the conservative movement is not due as much to its elites as to its grass roots: religious groups, civic organizations, school boards, and on up the chain. They were increasingly inflamed by the excesses of the Democrats who are now taking their orders from -- and terrified by -- The Groups. And none of The Groups -- organized labor; the Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD; groups claiming to represent Latinos, Blacks, Women, etc., etc., etc. -- actually represent anyone other than their own top-down leadership. How many of those groups have been elected by their supposed constituencies?
The change the Democratic Party needs is to better understand the electorate in general, not just the leaders of their groups. It is that Donald Trump and MAGA (at their best and most responsible) are primarily responding to. But The Groups are so blinded by the worst of Trump and MAGA (and there's a lot of that) they cannot get past the demands of their own advocacy mission to listen to what they're actually saying in public, and how it is being heard politically.
In short, the Democratic Party is now seen as an advocacy organization itself, rather than as a political party. It is only when they can actually see and hear what they sound like to the middle of the electorate that they will be able to change. Until then, I expect we'll be seeing more proposals like this one that just continue paddling in a circle.
I don’t know that it can be a movement without a solid intellectual foundation to unify around, particularly in economics and policy. Who are the Milton Friedmans and and Friedrich Hayeks that can drive effective policy solutions? For that matter, what are the problems that they are trying to solve? I like Larry Summers and Jason Furman a lot, I see them as calm and knowledgeable centrists, but is that where the Democratic Party is right now?
There are many who early on identified the problem with the party, but few that I am aware of that have a cohesive and relatable world view. Trump is bad is not one. Neither is Republicans are bad. It works in the primary, but not elsewhere. Tariffs might work among farmers and union workers, but I don’t see them as worthwhile or as part of any type of unifying message. The Democrats don’t need another Cross of Gold speech.
I disagree with the article in general. If one is a professor of history one should abstain from romantic ideas and wishful thinking.
The thing is that much of the rural American and the Rust Belt got very rural and very rusty because of populism = mythology, romantic ideas, bad demands and expectations from the government, greed for subsidised, etc. So "progressive conservatism" cannot be the future because such policies are both inefficient, destructive and so costly in the USA that already has lot of debt on the national level
Populism and centrism are opposing ideas and processes. Also, populism cannot benefit more Americans because it rejects the individual and the general society in favor of certain groups. Even worse, work is being reduced around the world due to processes such as automation and robotization. Thereby, if Dems want a better future they should focus more on others than the working-class individuals and promote better politics as basic income and cooperatives.
One of many problem with "American jobs" is that it is based on myths. Millions of jobs in the USA depend on global and regional interactions, flows, cooperation between humans and organisations. Jobs do not have nationalities
Tariffs do not create jobs or contribute to some jobs for special interests. If you think tariffs are good for the economy, why not impose them on state levels? Tax extra stuff from Michigan entering California. Or why not even between cities? If they are so "rooted in local communities" they could also argue for tariffs and migration controls between cities and towns or?
The movement that Professor Syck describes sounds a lot like the Center-Right party that I wish Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger and others like them would form to replace the Republicans.
One might long for a return to the days of quiet sanity, but for the next while we must endure the battle of the fanatics. Think AOC mud wrestling with MTG. Hey ... that might be fun.