Democratic Party Suicide

A recent New York Times article, "Moderate Democrats Prepare for 'War' Against an Ascendant Left," describes a disturbing perspective among mainstream, moderate, centrist Democrats. It is disturbing for many reasons.

First, there is the practical impact. If indeed mainstream Democrats attack socialist Democrats in a sustained, organized manner, there is only one possible result: the defeat of the Party in 2026 and the renewed vigor of Trump and his MAGA allies. Especially when combined with the all-out effort that AIPAC will mostly take to support Republican candidates running against Democratic candidates who are socialists. (See my article, "The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC.")

If Party leaders, such as Obama, Clinton, and others, do not speak out forcefully against this misguided effort, the result could be catastrophic for the Party.

But beyond the practical impact, there is the existential impact. Democrats have for years been struggling without success to define what the Party stands for. As I have frequently quoted, after John Kerry lost the 2004 election, former Vice-President Mondale said, “We really need to work on the question of what we are for. Unless we have a vision and the arguments to match, I don’t think we’re going to truly connect with the American people“ And this was after a presidential election—the quadrennial defining moment for the Party!

The Democratic Party lost to Trump in 2016 and 2020, not because of the rabidness of Trump's MAGA followers or his magnetism, but because the Party had redirected its attention. In modern times, the Party had always been the party of the people, of the workers. And they returned the favor; those were the Americans that provided the multi-ethnic and multi-color coalition that made the Party the powerhouse of American political life for most of the 20th century.

But after Ronald Reagan's 1980 election, two unrelated things happened that caused the Party's traditional voting coalition to split. First, in the aftermath of the election, there was much confusion regarding how the Party should regain its footing. At the same time, Democrats started using PACs to direct corporate funding to centrist candidates not tied to New Deal populism and principles and more focused on working with industry. This desire for corporate $, which only increased with time as campaigns became more expensive, had an inevitable policy impact. You can't seek major contributions from corporations without providing them with access and policy influence.

The Democratic Leadership Council, of which Clinton was a part, was established in 1985 to reposition the Party toward the "center" and give it broader national appeal. It didn't sound like they were abandoning Democrats' traditional base; they wanted to add to it. They said they were abandoning the leftward shift of the 60s to attract the White middle-class voter, but what they were really doing was shifting toward industry interests. But as the saying goes, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Pleasing corporations meant at least backing off somewhat from more liberal positions that protect the people. What the DLC was really doing was moving the Party to the right.

And indeed, once this change in the Party was solidified, Democrats' actions in power changed. For example, President Clinton became an advocate of free trade agreements, which were anathema to unions and blue-collar workers. Clinton signed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act—finance industry regulations—pushed by the Republican-controlled Congress. When some Democrats tried to reinstate Glass-Steagall after the 2008 stock market crash and the recession that followed, Obama and centrist Democrats didn't even allow it to come to a vote.

One result of this change was that the American blue-collar worker was more or less left out to dry—not purposefully, but as a practical effect. As they lost jobs and their wages stagnated because of globalization, they became more and more alienated from the Democratic Party. This was a major factor in the rise of the Tea Party and ultimately in the desertion of large numbers of blue-collar workers, including people of color, from the Party to vote for Trump.

The second thing that happened in the 80s is that the Party, after passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, became more focused on the struggles of women and people of color to pursue their rights to life, liberty, and happiness. The focus was on enabling equal opportunity in college and job applications, among other things, which morphed into the Affirmative Action agenda, which not only provided equal opportunity but also gave preference over an equally qualified White male. The idea behind Affirmative Action programs is understandable, but unfortunately they replaced one wrong with another. And ultimately, the courts declared that such programs were unconstitutional.

Both the effects of globalization and Affirmative Action alienated large numbers of blue-collar White workers. They became angry, lost trust in the Party, and, in subsequent elections, voted more Republican. Until in Trump's campaign, a significant block of blue-collar workers—primarily White but also people of color—voted for Trump, resulting in his winning the Presidency.

As I have written, it is urgent for the Party to return to our founding principles, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, focus once again on the people, and regain its status as the majority party in the United States. See my article, "URGENT: What Democrats Must Do to Win the Midterm Elections."

This is what Democratic socialists are trying to do. And this is why they are having such success. It's all about the people. It is a message that resonates. This may be a repudiation of the Party establishment of the past 40 years, which grew out of the Democratic Leadership Council.

But this is not a turn to the left; this is not a Socialist revolution. (As I've written elsewhere, Sanders, Mamdani, and others are not Socialists in that they don't argue for government ownership of the means of production; they are socialists only in the sense that they think that government should be more focused on the rights of people.)

The Democratic Leadership Council was a turn to the right; what Sanders and Mamdani are urging is a return to the center of the traditional Democratic Party. This is a return to our founding principles, to the nation's center. This is a return to American values. See my article, "What Are American Values."

Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com