A Better Democrat Party

[Immanuel Can]

Let's talk about something everybody can agree on.

• Let's accept that both parties in the US have a continued interest in a two-party system, not a one-party or totalitarian one. That being so, both sides certainly should want the rival party to survive -- even if they, themselves, would wish to be the winner of every election from now until eternity.

• Let's further accept that the world has an interest in America remaining a democracy of at least two parties, and all voters have an interest in it, if for no better reason, than at least because they want to be able to vote, and voting means choosing among alternatives.

Okay: so everybody agrees that a party other than the current winner must survive. Fair enough?

• Furthermore, let us agree that things are not exactly working well for the Democrat Party right now. The last election, by the reckoning of both sides, was a total disaster for them. Somehow, their strategy was just not right -- assuming their goal was to win, which I think we can assume.

• And finally, let us recognize that the Democrat Party is control only of their own choices. Complaining about what the others do or did, whether voters or Republicans, is not going to make the Democrat Party any better or give them any advantage in coming elections. The blame-game will not pay off in terms of the future, but is likely to just repeat the past. Some new thing is needed.

All that is very hard to dispute, I think: no matter which party one might happen to favour, or none at all.

That being said, my question would be this: What learnings do the Democrats need to take from this past election, in order to make their party more viable in the future?

[Impenitent]

the last decent democrat was assassinated in Dallas- after that they all have been devotees of Marx

(cutting the top tax rates and the money "trickles down?" - Reaganomics was started by JFK)

-Imp

p.s. https://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/09/the-sec ... ntary.html

[accelafine]

Doesn't make much difference. It's been exactly 50/50 since 1948. I can't be bothered looking any further back. If it's 50/50 then clearly the system works pretty well.

[accelafine]

the last decent democrat was assassinated in Dallas- after that they all have been devotees of Marx

(cutting the top tax rates and the money "trickles down?" - Reaganomics was started by JFK)

-Imp

p.s. https://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/09/the-sec ... ntary.html

Yeah, like THAT'S ever happened. Milton Friedman's 'trickle-down bs' was discredited decades ago. I can't believe people are still spewing that crap.

[Immanuel Can]

the last decent democrat was assassinated in Dallas- after that they all have been devotees of Marx

Pretty much. Either directly or indirectly, the recent extremists on the Left have certainly been heavily influenced by Neo-Marxism.

But okay...the point of the thread would not be to criticize, but to improve the Party. So let's say we agree they need to drop the Neo-Marxism: what should be their guiding ideology instead of that, so we can keep a viable two-party system, and so that the Democrats have a reasonable chance of success in participating in it?

[BigMike]

What learnings do the Democrats need to take from this past election, in order to make their party more viable in the future?

You've laid out some key assumptions about the health and balance of a two-party system, and you’ve raised a question I think strikes at the heart of this moment for the Democrats. What can they learn to strengthen their future viability? Now, whether or not one accepts the framing that the last election was a “total disaster” for Democrats (interpretations vary, to say the least), it’s clear that both parties have had to reckon with shifts that, for Democrats, suggest some vital points of reflection.

So, what are these lessons? First, it’s worth looking at how the Democrats can reconnect with disillusioned voters, especially those whose economic anxieties haven’t been meaningfully addressed by either party. Let’s not sugarcoat it: people feel the pinch, whether it’s from stagnant wages, housing costs, healthcare, or job instability, and it’s not enough just to tell them *how much worse it could be*. Democrats need to articulate a vision that offers tangible solutions that make a difference in their daily lives, and this can’t come off as vague or elite-driven.

Secondly, there’s a narrative gap that Republicans have effectively filled. They’ve crafted a compelling (if at times divisive) story about identity, security, and self-determination. For Democrats to regain their footing, they need to tell a story that resonates as powerfully with people across the socioeconomic spectrum, connecting with values and visions people can see themselves in. And, ideally, without falling into the reactionary trap—just opposing Republicans isn’t the same as articulating a proactive, aspirational agenda.

Lastly, about the idea of being “in control of their own choices”—you’re onto something here. Democrats need to own their strategy and learn from what hasn’t landed. That means a little introspection, maybe a little less emphasis on blaming the opposition, and a lot more on defining who they are and what they’re going to do differently. Policies are one thing, but the ability to translate those policies into a relatable, grounded narrative—that’s where they’re going to find a real way forward.

So, if they can learn anything from recent losses, it’s that the pathway to viability lies in economic empathy, compelling narratives, and a commitment to walking their talk—actually showing people what a better future looks like in concrete, relatable terms. Now, if they can embrace that kind of approach, they might just find themselves with a renewed, revitalized platform.

[Immanuel Can]

What learnings do the Democrats need to take from this past election, in order to make their party more viable in the future?

You've laid out some key assumptions about the health and balance of a two-party system, and you’ve raised a question I think strikes at the heart of this moment for the Democrats. What can they learn to strengthen their future viability? Now, whether or not one accepts the framing that the last election was a “total disaster” for Democrats (interpretations vary, to say the least), it’s clear that both parties have had to reckon with shifts that, for Democrats, suggest some vital points of reflection.

Well, what we can say for sure is this: a lot of the key, most famous Democrats think that the last election was a disaster. They were surprised, at the very least...and to lose both the election and the popular vote, and to make no gains over Biden's performance in any state in the Union...well, that pretty much has to be considered a disaster, I think, by any name.

But let's choose the expression, "less than desired result," so we don't excite anybody. The point here is not to be partisan but helpful.

So, what are these lessons? First, it’s worth looking at how the Democrats can reconnect with disillusioned voters, especially those whose economic anxieties haven’t been meaningfully addressed by either party. Let’s not sugarcoat it: people feel the pinch, whether it’s from stagnant wages, housing costs, healthcare, or job instability, and it’s not enough just to tell them *how much worse it could be*. Democrats need to articulate a vision that offers tangible solutions that make a difference in their daily lives, and this can’t come off as vague or elite-driven.

Very good.

Secondly, there’s a narrative gap that Republicans have effectively filled. They’ve crafted a compelling (if at times divisive) story about identity, security, and self-determination.

I'm not sure that's true. In any case, it's obvious that the Democrats' association with CRT, identity politics, sexual deviancy, opposition to families, pro-abortionism, open borders and anti-Americanism has formed its own narrative package. Would you suggest that they should persist with these things, or change their own narrative? After all, they aren't in charge of whatever the Republicans are doing, but they can fix themselves, presumably...

For Democrats to regain their footing, they need to tell a story that resonates as powerfully with people across the socioeconomic spectrum, connecting with values and visions people can see themselves in. And, ideally, without falling into the reactionary trap—just opposing Republicans isn’t the same as articulating a proactive, aspirational agenda.

Fair enough. Any ideas about what sort of new narrative that would be?

Lastly, about the idea of being “in control of their own choices”—you’re onto something here. Democrats need to own their strategy and learn from what hasn’t landed. That means a little introspection, maybe a little less emphasis on blaming the opposition, and a lot more on defining who they are and what they’re going to do differently. Policies are one thing, but the ability to translate those policies into a relatable, grounded narrative—that’s where they’re going to find a real way forward.

Yes, that's what I'm suggesting: they can only change themselves, not the opposition. And again we come back to their need of a better narrative, and again I wonder what sort of narrative you would think that should be.

So, if they can learn anything from recent losses, it’s that the pathway to viability lies in economic empathy, compelling narratives, and a commitment to walking their talk—actually showing people what a better future looks like in concrete, relatable terms. Now, if they can embrace that kind of approach, they might just find themselves with a renewed, revitalized platform.

That sounds right...but somewhat vague, I have to say. Perhaps others, if not you, would have a more definite idea of what sort of package of all that they could adopt.

Thanks for the thoughts.

[Dubious]

It's nice to talk about a better Democratic Party.

It remains to be seen how a trifecta Republican Party, virtually in complete control, without opposition from Senate or House and perhaps not even from the Supreme Court will reveal itself within the first few months of the Presidency.

Whatever the defects of the Democratic Party, I see only a massive decline ahead under the new regime...not only for the U.S., but consequently also in the rampant deteriorating geopolitical domain in which the main beneficiaries will be the two main powers of the East especially so when in combination.

[Immanuel Can]

It's nice to talk about a better Democratic Party.

That is the topic.

It remains to be seen how a trifecta Republican Party...

That is not. The goal here is not to be critical of either party, but to suggest what the way forward for the Democrats may plausibly be.

[Dubious]

It's nice to talk about a better Democratic Party.

That is the topic.

It remains to be seen how a trifecta Republican Party...

That is not. The goal here is not to be critical of either party, but to suggest what the way forward for the Democrats may plausibly be.

Fair enough! But my response pertains to why should there be a better Democratic Party when the Republican Party is as debased is it will surely prove itself to be, thoroughly detrimental to U.S. interests with major external consequences in addition. In discussing one party, don't you think it's fair to be allowed a comparison between parties? Discussing only within the context of one is somewhat one-sided, meaning too partisan. While improvements are desirable independent of parties, the questions remain does the Democratic Party even need to improve relative to Republican based on the near traitorous intentions of its worshiped leader?

[BigMike]

What learnings do the Democrats need to take from this past election, in order to make their party more viable in the future?

Well, what we can say for sure is this: a lot of the key, most famous Democrats think that the last election was a disaster. They were surprised, at the very least...and to lose both the election and the popular vote, and to make no gains over Biden's performance in any state in the Union...well, that pretty much has to be considered a disaster, I think, by any name.

But let's choose the expression, "less than desired result," so we don't excite anybody. The point here is not to be partisan but helpful.

Secondly, ....

I'm not sure that's true. In any case, it's obvious that the Democrats' association with CRT, identity politics, sexual deviancy, opposition to families, pro-abortionism, open borders and anti-Americanism has formed its own narrative package. Would you suggest that they should persist with these things, or change their own narrative? After all, they aren't in charge of whatever the Republicans are doing, but they can fix themselves, presumably...

For Democrats to regain their footing, ...

Fair enough. Any ideas about what sort of new narrative that would be?

Lastly, ...

Yes, that's what I'm suggesting: they can only change themselves, not the opposition. And again we come back to their need of a better narrative, and again I wonder what sort of narrative you would think that should be.

So, if they can learn anything ...

That sounds right...but somewhat vague, I have to say. Perhaps others, if not you, would have a more definite idea of what sort of package of all that they could adopt.

Thanks for the thoughts.

What’s really in play is the idea that, as much as we might wish it to be otherwise, people’s decisions are deeply shaped by their circumstances—economic background, upbringing, community environment, and access to education and resources. These factors set up powerful patterns that influence not only individual choices but entire political outcomes.

So, when we talk about revitalizing a party to “reconnect” with voters, we’re assuming people can simply be swayed by messaging or slogans alone. But when people are facing challenges like stagnant wages, housing instability, and high healthcare costs, it’s not enough for a party to tell them a better story. What they need is tangible, visible improvement in their lives, and that means tackling those root conditions, not just addressing their symptoms.

In a broader sense, this means that, rather than framing political strategies around what sounds appealing, a more effective system would be structured to resolve issues from the ground up. The focus wouldn’t just be on winning voter support; it would be on creating real, sustained progress on things like economic equity, accessible education, healthcare, and infrastructure. Policies built to address these foundational issues would make party lines and campaign promises feel less like a tug-of-war over voter loyalty and more like a collective drive toward societal improvement.

So, yes, Democrats can—and probably should—rethink their narrative. But maybe the deeper question is how to build systems that serve people directly, through concrete, measurable impacts. That’s where the difference between meaningful change and mere rhetoric really shows.

[FlashDangerpants]

The incoming administration is about to nominate a child sex trafficker for attorney general and an unqualified man from a TV show as sec of defence. Their 78 year old leader is, at one and the same time, both irreplaceable and dying, and the nominated successor - should the irreplaceable man with arteries made of cheese do the inevitable while in office - is a man who is only in that position because Trump wanted money and the money wanted Vance, but nobody either way thinks Vance could win an election.

The second Trump administration clearly will not contain any of those "adults in the room" who held the previous one in check. It's inflicting wounds on itself before day one with completely avoidable errors and it will collapse into epic disarray without the Dems needing to really do much of anything at all.

It would therefore be a mistake for them to take recommendations on what would make for a "Better Democrat Party" from people who think the GOP is doing well.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I have often intoned that it serves us far more to try to understand things — in this case a unique political transformation in America brought about by the phenomenon of Donald Trump — rather than focus on and deal in silly superficialities.

I recommend this video essay by Michael Millerman on the intellectual background of JD Vance. There is so little genuine and fair discussion of whole sets of (Dissident Right) influence on our present. Yet it is very real.

The incoming administration is about to nominate a child sex trafficker for attorney general and an unqualified man from a TV show as sec of defence. Their 78 year old leader is, at one and the same time, both irreplaceable and dying, and the nominated successor - should the irreplaceable man with arteries made of cheese do the inevitable while in office - is a man who is only in that position because Trump wanted money and the money wanted Vance, but nobody either way thinks Vance could win an election.

No one of us really knows where any of this is going or will go. The facts are — for any sober analyst — that the nation America is at a really bizarre point in its history. And its fate, its direction, will involve the whole world. For “philosophers” to defend partisan positions does not seem very smart. And there are alternatives.

The second Trump administration clearly will not contain any of those "adults in the room" who held the previous one in check. It's inflicting wounds on itself before day one with completely avoidable errors and it will collapse into epic disarray without the Dems needing to really do much of anything at all.

That is not the impression I have. Like it or not there is a “mandate” and there really is a conservative faction in the wings, and also present in the center, that will definitely work toward restructuring on many different levels. The up-in-the-air question is how will the radical liberal “progressive” factions oppose all that has been proposed as possible or likely. And how The Culture Wars continue to play out.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So, what are these lessons? First, it’s worth looking at how the Democrats can reconnect with disillusioned voters, especially those whose economic anxieties haven’t been meaningfully addressed by either party. Let’s not sugarcoat it: people feel the pinch, whether it’s from stagnant wages, housing costs, healthcare, or job instability, and it’s not enough just to tell them *how much worse it could be*. Democrats need to articulate a vision that offers tangible solutions that make a difference in their daily lives, and this can’t come off as vague or elite-driven.

Your emphasis is continually on economic issues. These are surely real concerns however I think you do not take into consideration the widespread view among those oriented toward *conservative values* that the political and social culture of the United States has become (in terms they would use) deviant and perverse. Your economic focus is itself an expression of Neo-Marxism. The actual fact is that there is a tremendous upsurge among average people, and certainly influenced by more elite thinkers with the wherewithal to articulate ideas, in favor of a turning back to genuine social and political conservative principles, and often involving a religious-inspired turning. JD Vance (the essay offered just above) is a very good example of what I refer to.

The Democrat Party is actually incapable of articulating a holistic program at this juncture. If they are in disarray, and they certainly are, it is because they do not have an ordered coherent *picture* of what is needed.

Secondly, there’s a narrative gap that Republicans have effectively filled. They’ve crafted a compelling (if at times divisive) story about identity, security, and self-determination. For Democrats to regain their footing, they need to tell a story that resonates as powerfully with people across the socioeconomic spectrum, connecting with values and visions people can see themselves in. And, ideally, without falling into the reactionary trap—just opposing Republicans isn’t the same as articulating a proactive, aspirational agenda.

You are seeing things through a lens and a *narrative* largely held and operated by the Democrat faction. You embody those views, Big Mike. But there is an alternative view. The Democrat Party, for strategic reasons, has played within the *identity* game in extreme ways. And at the same time, I think it is fair to say, have attacked what I might refer to as *genuine identity* or the sort of identity that average people, sometimes in specific regions, identify with and through. Identity politics has been a wedge-tool in a neo-Marxian strategic game that involves exploiting differences.

What has happened, and it took shape slowly, is that entire sectors in the US population began to educate themselves and to resist this Democrat-run, undermining social-political program. What we refer to far too generally as *wokism* must be carefully explained. But you, with your shallow machine-learning tone and idea structure, can take no part of this into consideration. You lack a fundamental grasp of what is really going on.

Lastly, about the idea of being “in control of their own choices”—you’re onto something here. Democrats need to own their strategy and learn from what hasn’t landed. That means a little introspection, maybe a little less emphasis on blaming the opposition, and a lot more on defining who they are and what they’re going to do differently. Policies are one thing, but the ability to translate those policies into a relatable, grounded narrative—that’s where they’re going to find a real way forward.

At the present time -- this is my opinion of course -- that *introspective* position is entirely out of their grasp. What we will see is the extension of opposition to all that they cannot understand. They will, as the saying goes, *double-down* on the entire edifice of their mistakes and misapprehensions. This is already evident in virulent form. I read the NY Times daily and it is all expressed there quite clearly.

[Immanuel Can]

It's nice to talk about a better Democratic Party.

That is the topic.

It remains to be seen how a trifecta Republican Party...

That is not. The goal here is not to be critical of either party, but to suggest what the way forward for the Democrats may plausibly be.

Fair enough! But my response pertains to why should there be a better Democratic Party...

Because it's manifest that they are in need. Somehow, they missed not only the election but the popular vote, as well.

So if one prefers the Democrat Party, how can one avoid this being a soul-searching moment, to a degree incomparable to the opposition? The goal here is not to bash either side -- and there are plenty of places where one can bash both parties to one's heart's content -- but rather to consider the democratic way forward, which entails some restrategizing for the Democrats. Arguably, the opposition could continue as they are, and plausibly still succeed. But clearly, the Democrats cannot.

I would be surprised, therefore, if anyone would seem more interested in the unprofitable criticism of the more-successful opposition, rather than the constructive improving of the Democrats. However, they can always start a new thread for that, if they prefer partisan complaining to constructive plans.