In order to think about the next steps for the Democratic Party and the February 1, 2025, vote for a new Democratic National Committee Chair, it is useful to remember the context of three pairs of Democratic Presidents since the 1960s.
JFK and LBJ led the way for major progressive changes, ranging from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to Affirmative Action and the War on Poverty. Johnson's Great Society was the most progressive agenda ever promoted by an American president.
President Jimmy Carter and President Bill Clinton especially represented the centrist turn in the Democratic Party. Two Southern Democrats openly recognized the limits of the federal government even as they advanced a range of progressive policies, including Carter's renewable energy agenda and Clinton's signature on the Family and Medical Leave Act Bill. Carter encouraged self-sacrifice, and Clinton chanted, "The era of big government is over," and supported initiatives like welfare reform. Carter's centrism was complicated and particularly visible in his efforts to build up the military. Some recent commentators argue that with his human rights crusade, he, more than President Ronald Reagan, set things in motion to defeat the Soviet Union in the Cold War.
President Barack Obama and President Joe Biden returned to a more progressive orientation in domestic affairs. Obama countered Reagan and President George W. Bush's trickle-down economic agenda with some old-fashioned Keynesian deficit spending during the 2009-10 financial crisis. Obamacare was his historic achievement. Biden followed suit by supporting investments in the child tax credit, green energy, semiconductor chips, and infrastructure. In foreign affairs, Biden asked Congress for substantial financial support for Ukraine against Russia and, to a lesser extent, for Israel against Hamas.
Democrats are trying to figure out the next steps after Vice President Harris's loss to President-elect Trump. Rather than move left, right, or center, a more fruitful but admittedly risky approach for the Democratic Party would be to break out of this pendulum cycle and take the very bold step of reinventing the Democratic Party in such a way that it is able to work effectively with the rising group of independents in the United States.
Ironically, Democrats could advance their cause if they recognized the importance of the over 40% of Americans, according to Gallup, who identify as independents, not in the sense of getting independents to vote for Democrats but getting independents in some select races to vote for independent politicians.
To many, this will sound counterintuitive if not self-destructive. But pursuing this path can help Democrats in the years ahead get 60 votes in the Senate regarding policy bills and 50 votes regarding budget bills and the reconciliation process.
How might this work? I have argued in the last year and a half in the "Fulcrum" and in over 50 US newspapers that our politics should gradually replace the value of bipartisanship with the value of tripartisanship. Independents need representation on Capitol Hill, especially in the Senate, where five to six members, either elected or senators who switched to Independent, could have substantial leverage. Dartmouth economics professor Charles Wheelan illustrated how this "fulcrum strategy" for centrists might work in "The Centrist Manifesto." It would also work for independents.
Democrats in the years ahead might incentivize some Republicans to leave the Republican party and become Independents who would either caucus with them or establish their own Independent Caucus. For example, they might incentivize Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Ak) away from the Republican Party by offering her a Chairmanship or Ranking Member position on an important Senate Committee. Likewise, in Senate races where chances of electing a Democrat seem slim, Democrats might support a candidate running as an Independent.
In fact, in the case of one of the two races for the U.S. Senate in Nebraska, the Nebraska Democratic Party offered its endorsement to an independent, Dan Osborn. But he turned it down because he was not accepting party endorsements. Still, many Democratic PACS supported Osborn, as did many Democratic voters, and it was a surprisingly close race even though incumbent Senator Deb Fischer ultimately won.
Republicans could use the same strategy, but they are currently feeling confident about their power in the Senate, the House, and the White House and are less likely to reinvent themselves. Getting a new DNC Chair to start a war with the Republicans is a 20th-century strategy. Being bold involves doing something new, not just picking up missiles and bombs that have not been used for a while and using them again.
Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework," has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.
In terms of money flowing through the campaign-finance system, political action committees (PACs) are three times more active than candidates running for reelection or office. That is concentrated political power that leaves many congressional candidates running for reelection or office dependent on PAC support.
