The Ezra Klein show recently ran two really interesting vlog episodes on why the Democratic Party is in the dumpster, even as the Republican Party makes the entire country a raging dumpster fire. They're instructive, but in the case of the first one, not for the reason the guest likely hoped for.
It wasn't all that long ago, we should note, that political scientists had declared that the GOP doomed to demographic extinction. It was, and is, a small tent party. The party needed to reach out, it was told, and bring in all the people in the Democratic camp. Long time readers here, of which there are likely very few, will recall that I predicated that some of the demographic analysis was flat out wrong, and that Hispanics in particular would start moving into the Republican Party.
I was right.
Now we live in the opposite world. People hate the Republican Party but they hate the Democratic Party more. Really a new party is needed, one that doesn't see global warming as a fib but which opposed abortion, for example, would have a lot of appeal. But that's a post for some other time.
Let's look at what the experts have to say. First, as it was first in time, is the interview with Suzanne Mettler, a political scientist at Cornell and co-author of the new book “Rural Versus Urban: The Growing Divide That Threatens Democracy"
The interview is here.
I could tell in listening to it that Klein thinks the book is wrong, and while I haven't read it, I know it is, if it espouses the same views that Mettler did in her interview. She looks at everything economically and that's about it. Social issues don't mean anything.
Well, I lived through this and saw a Wyoming that had a large, but minority, Democratic Party almost completely die. Most of the major active Democrats in the party started to move to the Republican Party during the Clinton Administration and that trickle became a flood. All sorts of respected "traditional" elder Republicans in Wyoming were once Democrats. They left as it increasingly became impossible to be a centrist or conservative Democrat. There's no room for a pro life Democrat, for instance, in the party anymore. Once homosexual marriages, transgenderism, and showing up at rallies with blue hair became the norm, the normal largely dropped out and won't come back.
That's what killed the Democrats in the West.
This interview with Jared Abbott, the director of the Center for Working-Class Politics, is much better as Abbot is realistic and not hopelessly clueless, as Mettler seems to be:
Abbot actually admits that he isn't sure if the Democrats can come back from political exile in rural areas, but the examples he gives of people running from the outside are excellent. Nebraska equivalent of Wyoming's John Barrasso, Deb Fischer, provides an interesting example as she nearly went down in defeat to independent Dan Osborn.
Osborn's race is really instructive as he wasn't a Democrat, but called bullshit on a lot of Fischer's politics. Osborn himself is a working man, and he's pretty conservative.
And there's the real lesson.
Democrats right now can't get any traction in rural areas as frankly nobody can stand to vote for anyone they are putting up, most of the time, and then when they do put up a good candidate, the party's platform kills them. The Democratic Party became, quite frankly, the Transgendered Vegan Party, and that's going nowhere. It not only became that, it can't get away from it. Look at any protest of Trump's policies that's a public one, and you'll see the usual suspects. If there isn't a hugely overweight middle aged woman with blue hair, you just aren't looking hard enough.
Indeed, this has become so much the case that that left wing protests that are popular now are sometimes all Republican. In Natrona County the recent Radiant Energy No Nuke protests were lead by Republicans including a Wyoming Freedom Caucus member of the legislature. Chuck Gray came up and lead his support, sounding like he was Chuck Gray from Greenpeace. If Democrats can't own that issue . . . .
There seems to be a little waking up, but only a little. Public lands is what did it.
Back in the 1980s, when I switched from the Republican Party into the Democratic Party (I left the Dems with the great flood of us who couldn't hack the weirdness), public lands and attention to environmental issues is what did it. People worship Ronald Reagan now, but James Watt, his Secretary of the Interior, was an Evangelical Christian zealot in favor of ravaging the land now, as he was certain that the Second Coming was going to be very soon. That land ravaging instinct remains very strong in the GOP and recently came out in spades.
Wyoming Democrat Karlee Provenza picked right up on that and came out in front. The Democrats need to do more of that. Land issues are near and ear to Wyomingites and the Republicans are very vulnerable on them. That issue alone might, if really exploited, bring the Democrats back if their campaigns were really strategic.
Some of that strategy has to be getting really personal. Sure, Hageman is for turning public lands over for sale. . she's from a "fourth generation" ranching family, and the ranchers always believe they'll get the land, even though they won't. Same for Lummis Sure, Dr. John is for it, he's a Pennsylvanian not a Wyomingite. Did you every see him at your favorite fishing hole?
But one issue alone is a risky proposition. What they also need to do is dump the weirdness. Being lashed to transgenderism is a completely losing proposition. A Democratic candidate is going to be asked about it . . and could really make hay on it.
But only if they're willing to fight dirty, which the GOP definitely is. But they're not prepared for the same.
For instance, if a public lands Democrat was running for the House, and asked about this issue, we would expect the usually milk toast fall in line answer they normally give. But if they said, "oh gosh no, that's a mental illness and it needs to be treated that way, and women's sports and role in society needs to be protected. . . " it'd leave the Republicans flat footed.
They'd be on their heels, however, if it went further. If you added "and by the way, I constantly hear our GOP talk about being pro family. I don't know how pro family you can be if you are jacking up their cost of living and particularly their insurance rantes, but what about that family stuff? Hageman's been married for years and she ain't got any children. . nephews and nieces aren't the same thing, and Chuck Gray is 36 years old and unmarried. . .what's up with that? Why I think a decent man ought to marry a decent woman young and have some kids. . . and when that doesn't happen that's because they aren't focused on families, darn it".
Yeah, that's nasty, but how do they reply? It is the case that Hageman and her husband have never had children. Maybe there's a medical reason, but maybe it was a focus on careers and using pharmaceuticals to avoid it. If so, that ain't very populist Republican. And Chuck Gray is 36 years old and unmarried. I know that he's a Mass attending Catholic, and I'm not accusing him of any intimate immorality, but I will note that by age 36 men are usually married, or in our current society, living with some female "partner". Gray doesn't appear to fit either of these which is odd, as it demonstrates something about his character, perhaps simply an unlikeable character, that's keeping it from occurring, unless he just doesn't want to get married, which is unlikely.
FWIW, as I'm a bit connected, I know that Gray dated women while living in Casper. Obviously those relationships didn't work out. I'm not claiming he's light in his loafers.
I will say, however, that once you get out there, there are die hard right wing Republicans in this state who are subject to some unwelcome attention on their personal lives. Is that fair? Well, if you are calling for suppressing certain groups, and you are part of them, you owe people an explanation.
Which gets back to the inevitable question that comes up now, "what about gay marriage". Again, it's easy for a Republican to say "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman". A Democratic coming back with "so do I, and I believe that union arises once. . . what do you think about that Dr. John. . . and is that why you abandoned your original faith?".
Nasty. But Dr. John wouldn't have a very good answer for it.
Abortion is always going to come up. Abortion is the issue that ultimately drove a lot of us out of the Democratic Party, including me. The Democrats should simply abandon a position on it and let candidates stake out their own ground. There remain a few pro life Democrats out there, and to be one shouldn't be an anathema.
And, indeed, if that was allowed, it allows uncomfortable questions to be asked. Republicans claim to be pro life, but now their massively in favor of IVF, which kills most of the embrioes that it creates. Current Democrats can't really ask about that without hypocrisy. A pro life Democrat could.
Can the Democrats do all that?
Probably not.
No comments:
Post a Comment