The newspapers and newscasts are filled with Democrats’ angst. A CNN poll finds that “less than two‑thirds of Democrats have a positive view of the Democratic Party” right now.
There is no acknowledged party leader. Some columnists call for a swing to liberal (read extreme) solutions to persistent problems and inequities. Others call for aggressive attacks on Trumpism. Still others call for humility and more empathetic listening. Some say we need to erase symbols of elitism and expertise. Some say it’s the message that needs attending; others, policies and programs.
Back in the 2016 election, I suggested a positioning of the Democratic Party that encompasses both saying and doing. Neither Clinton nor Adam Smith nor the DNC nor Nancy Pelosi responded to my suggestion, but I am undeterred. I made a successful career “positioning” products, services, and not-for-profit enterprises, by articulating mission, developing product, creating awareness, and seeding beliefs.
By positioning, I mean the place you hold in the brain of your prospective customer, donor, or voter relative to that they hold about your competitor. In political terms, that means what the voting public believes “Democrat” means relative to Conservative, Libertarian, Republican, or Progressive.
I suggest my party narrow its focus to removing barriers both in what we talk about and in the proposals we espouse. What barriers? Barriers to education. Barriers to housing. To health care. To voting.
Nothing more. Forget railing against Musk and Trump, against billionaires, against opponents of same-sex marriage and proponents of abortion bans, against corporations and Citizens United. Debate topics such as taxation and immigration, NATO and Ukraine, Israel and Palestine, deficits and national debt — but only in response to challenge. Instead, initiate and steer conversation to what matters to American families, to what impedes their attainment of better lives for themselves, their children, and grandchildren. That includes access to affordable education, access to affordable housing, affordable and accessible healthcare, and easy voting registration and participation.
We should become the Party of Removing Barriers: barriers to Education, to Housing, to Healthcare, to Voting. Simple, persistent, policy priorities and a simple message to grasp and relate to.
Discover more from Post Alley
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Great ideas Fletch for rethinking how people in Democratic Party leadership could re-frame what they want to do with political power. Should not be too hard since removing barriers has been on the D’s agenda for awhile. It gets lost amid the news cycle and the D’s not willing to show up in all the places they have invested in to take credit for increasing economic opportunities in peoples day to day lives. In our state, the D’s have made it a policy to invest in community and technical colleges across the state.And of course the revenue for these investments come from left leaning D districts. Yet, they do not show up for the ribbon cutting nor find all the ways to have their faces, their names, their message in the local media to get credit for this massive transfer of wealth from “blue” wealthy communities to “red” working class hubs. Successful progressive campaigns in Washington focus not on policy, they focus on results of investment. Hence the successful campaign against the initiative to repeal the Climate Commitment Act. The initiative was defeated across the state, red counties and blue. The campaign focused on the benefits from all the investments in efficiency making communities more resilient.
“Removing barriers” feels like message spin over complex problems. Remove barriers for who, and at the expense of what? How does this actually translate to addressing the housing crisis, for example? Do we pass policies supporting small landlords, or tenant protections — these laws often pit these two groups against each other. Are permitting requirements “barriers” or protection against shoddy workmanship or assurance that our infrastructure is right-sized? And how on earth do cities tackle the real barrier of cost to produce housing? That would require paying local workers a whole lot less or finding cheaper materials.
I do appreciate that many still believe the way is to solve problems for people, but….I also worry that we’ve lost the thread, that material improvement doesn’t necessarily result in votes or return to power. We’re in the middle of a global realignment reckoning with huge social and technological changes, and Democrats’ first instinct is to put their thinking caps on when the whole world is leading with their hearts.
Mr. Waller:
Maybe what you wrote makes sense to you, but it doesn’t make any to me. You say we should “steer conversation to what matters to American families,” which “includes access to affordable education, access to affordable housing, affordable and accessible healthcare, and easy voting registration and participation,” while at the same time we should “forget railing against Musk and Trump, against billionaires, against opponents of same-sex marriage and proponents of abortion bans, against corporations and Citizens United,” which pretty demonstrably stand in the way of attaining all of these worthy goals?
Are we, perhaps, to avoid pointing out that tax cuts for the rich will come at the expense of all of those who are not rich? That our civil liberties, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, public broadcasting, public health, and public education are under attack by the very forces we are not to “rail against?”
Your essay makes no sense whatever. It is self-contradictory on its face, and a pale rehash of the wretched “abundance” and “popularism” swill pushed by the jackals and hyenas of the consultant class who pander after big rich donors, who don’t stand for anything other than their own privilege.
Maybe I should have ignored this effort and not taken the time to vent my spleen on you, but I had just finished reading this much more substantive examination of this phenomenon by Hamilton Nolan, which made a lot more sense. Have a nice day.
https://www.hamiltonnolan.com/p/what-is-centrism
Agree with you that this and “Abundance” miss the zeitgeist of the moment that is rage/grief/insert-your-favorite-feeling-here and not some clever message or framing. The world is in bad shape because greedy people got very powerful and the government has lent a hand in that power grab. Trust is broken and these platitude explanations arent getting much traction outside the Bluesky/Substack circles.