Third Way: Warren Worries, Lessons from 2016, and Prospects for a Democrat 2020
Scott Olson | Getty Images
Among the political dynamics of America today, is the fact that more and more Democrats are aligning themselves with progressive causes, a majority now identifying themselves as liberals for the first time. With most voters disapproving of Trump’s presidency, the upcoming 2020 Presidential Election may seem like an ideal time for the Democratic party to campaign on a liberal-progressive platform. To that end, many leftist Democratic hopefuls have indicated that they intend to run, and on Dec. 31, 2018, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) became the first high-profile candidate to launch an exploratory committee on the subject. While many of her policy proposals, and especially her central message of strengthening the middle class, may resonate among bi-partisan circles, her more progressive leanings on many key issues, such as an emphasis on universal healthcare and her socialist stance on the economy, make her unlikely to unite the nation behind a democratic ticket.
As the first high-profile candidate to commit to a run, Warren is important because she foreshadows the political leanings that most Democrats expected to run in the crowded field will likely espouse. Indeed, the most moderate Democratic candidate seriously expected to present themselves is former Vice President Joe Biden, a contentious would-be nominee due to his inseparable ties to former President Barack Obama. To be sure, many progressive causes, such as the environment, align with bi-partisan concerns. However, by fully embracing progressive ideals at the national level, the Democrats risk alienating more moderate voters and heighten the prospect of another defeat by Donald Trump. In understanding how campaigning on the progressive ideology will be detrimental to the success of Democrats in 2020, three aspects must be considered: Donald Trump, the Presidential Election of 2016, and the Democratic electorate.
Without a doubt, Donald Trump is the most contentious president in recent times. His governing style has been inconsistent, his tenure is mired by seemingly endless scandal, his administration has the largest turnover rate than any in living memory, and many of his policies have been labeled as unconstitutional or decried as human rights violations. However, despite his indolence in regards to the now longest federal government shutdown in U.S. history, Trump’s presidency has been anything but inactive. Since his inauguration, the incumbent has aggressively pursued policy aimed at both solidifying and expanding his base. However contentious these policies have been, they can hardly come as a surprise since they are exactly what he promised to do on his campaign trail. Striking ISIS, achieving an ostensible détente with North Korea, eviscerating Obamacare, lowering taxes, and pursuing an aggressive border security policy is among the most important promises that Trump has made and kept.
By adhering to his many campaign promises, Trump has demonstrated to voters that he has the political gumption to effectuate change. This reputation, along with a robust economy argued to be his doing, has enabled Trump to both maintain his base and expand his support among moderates. In contrast, Democrats have been at best inactive and at worst confrontational, seen by many to create unnecessary gridlock. In this environment, by presenting progressive and euphemistically styled “democratic” socialist candidates Democrats are likely to play into Trump’s hands in 2020 by providing a less than acceptable alternative to a President who, while far from admired, has shown himself to keep his major promises and tow the moderate party line when necessary.
While Democrats have vowed to learn from their mistakes in 2016 and redeem themselves in 2020, it seems that the focus of the party has been on the fact that populism proved triumphant against the moderate personality of Hilary Clinton. To that end, Democratic electoral strategy took on more populist undertones in the 2018 Midterm Elections, shunning moderate positions and pursuing progressive campaigning as a way to win over blue-collar constituencies. Understanding how Trump won the 2016 election is essential in order to formulate an effective strategy against him. In a presidential contest, victory boils down to winning the majority of votes in a few key states known as swing-states. Generally, states are regarded as safe (i.e., majorities consistently favor one party) or swing (i.e., majorities often switch partisan allegiance). In the most important swing states today, both parties are known to aggressively campaign.
Comparing 2016 with the Obama elections, the shift away from Democrats and towards Trump is apparent. His success in these states is largely due to his ability to both project an anti-establishment image and address the chief concerns of their voters. In Michigan, Trump was able to appeal to the working class, many employed in the state’s struggling auto-industry, by promising to lower taxes and pursue advantageous trade deals. In Pennsylvania, moderate skepticism over the efficacy of the Affordable Care Act and concerns over the rising premiums caused voters to throw their weight behind the candidate who vowed to repeal it and re-achieve stability in the insurance system. Finally, in Ohio Trump’s pledges to revive traditional steel and coal industries while opposing environmental regulations that would hamper their growth tilted the electoral scale in his favor. Strong opposition to these issues and other swing-state idiosyncrasies, such as high retiree populations in Florida (the elderly seen as opposed to healthcare expansions which may threaten their existing privileges) and mostly socially conservative populations in general, make the swing states difficult grounds for Democrat success.
Despite these realities, many still opine that progressive candidates could win in these states. Pointing to the relative success of candidates such as Andrew Gillum and Stacey Abrams, in Florida and Georgia respectively, who both had strong showings in Republican-leaning swing-states, it is hypothesized that voter mobilization for progressive causes can and will defeat Trump. However, it is important to recognize that despite the very narrow outcomes (Abrams losing by less than 0.3 percent) they nonetheless lost their elections. By running progressive candidates who would campaign on the very issues – universal healthcare, environmental regulation, and political correctness – that drew voters away from Democrats in 2016, prospects for victory are unlikely to increase.
While the power of voter mobilization and outreach cannot be underscored, the results of such endeavors differ greatly depending on the kinds of elections that are at stake. Important to the constitutional system is the existence of the electoral college and the various state rules that bind their electors to the candidate that wins the majority vote in their jurisdiction. In a presidential election, where the national popular vote effectively does not matter (e.g., in 2016 Hilary Clinton won the popular vote), such strategies cannot assure victory, especially for liberal candidates. Since progressive voters are largely concentrated in urban sectors, mass mobilization targeting likely liberals will focus on major cities. While being able to mobilize a majority in highly urbanized states, such strategies will ultimately fail in more conservative rural regions, since logistics and lower social media consumption make them prohibitive to pursue. Significantly, since many swing states consist of a single metropolitan region surrounded by populous country (e.g., Miami, Cincinnati, Atlanta, etc.), get-out-the-vote initiatives have limited success since the voter rolls are more evenly split. Thus while increased participation among liberal millennials may tilt the scales in Democrats favor, most politically motivated are already in solid blue states or districts and are unlikely to prove decisive in a national contest.
These realities of the American system do not mean that no lessons can be learned from 2016. Instead of throwing their weight, and the ever important nomination, behind progressive candidates likely to alienate the very voters essential to victory, Democrats should support a moderate candidate that does not reek of inefficiency and cronyism like their 2016 choice. A possible candidate who has not ruled out a run is the former Governor of California Jerry Brown, a more moderate candidate who is unabashedly pro-climate responsibility (among the only bi-partisan progressive issue), not committed to divisive and expensive universal healthcare and is known as a budgetary hawk and tax-averse. Other less radical candidates that can deliver key states (such as Beto O’Rourke in Texas) should also be considered. Populism or bust was not the only message conveyed in 2016, and fighting extremist fires with more extreme flames will do more harm for the Democratic party than would a refreshing dose of moderate cool down.
