The Definition Of Crazy
Centrism has nothing to offer liberal causes
The path back to power for the Democrats does not lie in the think pieces or triangulation of a narrow party elite but in the actions taken and challenges posed by voters and activists at every step of the political process.
Mark Penn and Andrew Stein, respectively a public relations executive and a New York politician who last held office in 1994, join the ongoing flood of post-election op-eds on What the Democrats Should Do Next — in this case tacking back to the political center by jettisoning any positions that might offend the sensibilities of a largely mythical (white) working class.
Yet despite fiery reactions in the pages of the New Republic, Fusion, Slate, and elsewhere, Penn and Stein’s perspective undoubtedly has far more traction than many of us in the left-of-center would like to admit. Untold numbers no doubt believe that the Democratic Party can regain votes and seats simply by issuing statements that sidestep issues of race, redistribution, and regulation while harping on themes of law-and-order, strong borders, and good jobs for all.
A seductive idea, but a foolish one. The Republican Party and U.S. conservatives did not come to dominate contemporary U.S. politics through careful targeting of micro-constituencies; recent victories came despite more or less torching the GOP’s carefully considered post-2012 autopsy. They did so by turning their campaigns into the modern equivalent of gladiatorial combat, leveraging die-hard activist constituencies among gun-owners and opponents of abortion, and constructing nationwide lobbying networks such as the extensive set of policy centers and workshop series funded by the Koch brothers. And while gaining and regaining the presidency has been the GOP’s guiding light, it has relentlessly pursued power at every level of U.S. government by every means available — something Stein and Penn don’t address as they focus more or less solely on presidential politics.
In a time of unprecedented political uncertainty, we should be wary of anyone who proposes an “unquestionable” strategy for advancing liberal causes nationwide, especially one that relies on yet another recalibration of top-down messaging. What is needed is not the easy work of scoring points among the country’s chattering classes, but the hard labor of organizing and reinforcing local party structures and Democratic-friendly organizations that have atrophied after years of punishing defeats.
The heavy lifting of the next few election cycles will be done not by edicts from the politburo, but from the work of thousands of volunteers and would-be candidates currently putting in overtime to salvage the Affordable Care Act, shield immigrant communities, and call out Congress and our ever-more-erratic President on their more absurd proposals.
While there may be no country-wide mandate for a hard-left turn, a blanket shift to the center is a sure-fire way to kill enthusiasm for the hard work of organizing and campaigning over the next few election cycles. Party faithful and would-be supporters with more at stake in the political process than their professional reputations can and will turn their time and energy elsewhere to protect themselves and their communities from our present disaster of a political system.
Ultimately, newfound candidates should rise and fall not according to their adherence to party orthodoxy but on the basis of their ability to present a vision to voters that extends beyond “We’re not crazy.” Even maverick-y conservative Democrats (remember the Blue Dog Democrats?) are likely to have an easier time than those who run on a ticket of bland centrism that excites nobody. Jon Ossoff was easily the blandest and most centrist of the recent special election contenders and was the only candidate to fall short of Clinton’s margin in the 2016 election.
In support of such efforts, the Party’s leaders would do best to define a broad set of values to guide candidates — ensuring broad access to quality health care and education, addressing the structural inequalities that plague our society, restraining the overweening power of U.S. corporations, protecting the environment from irreversible harm — and lend tacit support to whichever individuals stand more than a snowball’s chance in Sen. James Inhofe’s grip. For the Party and its donors, it’s hard to think of a rainier set of days to finance a lot of throwing of spaghetti at walls to see what sticks.
Beyond this, the role of the Party should be to combat publicly the structural advantages that the GOP has baked into the electoral system. Voter suppression efforts are an easy target; research by Stephen Pettigrew at my own institution, featured in these pages, has shown that every new hurdle in the paths of voters can hinder turnout even years after the fact. Likewise, every effort should be made to preserve and expand what remains of America’s unions, crucial sources of protection for increasingly squeezed workforces and vital bastions of organization and issue education that have traditionally looked to the Democratic Party.
After all, Americans are looking for Democrats who champion their concerns and issues against the distant, unfeeling institutions of the U.S. corporate and government worlds. They need leaders with a sound grasp of the issues but who understand that their constituents are humans who want to be treated as more than just numbers on a page. If the Party cannot provide that, then they should support those communities and organizations that can and will.
Andrew Leber is based in Boston.
