A Better Democrat Party

[Immanuel Can]

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.

No, I don't think we are. I think we're pointing out that slogans and branding have failed. Big money has failed, and even big media has failed. Something new is at work in the democratic process, whereby these superficialities are no longer working. Some suggest it's the effect of the internet, which breaks the monopoly on political propaganda...and that may be part of the truth. But if that's all it is, then there's also no way to improve the prospects of the DP.

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.

Exactly so. But for the electoral process to engage that, a party needs a package, a story about all that that promises actual betterment. And people have to see and agree that the policies and persons involved in that story are plausible to help them with the economy, or housing, or whatever they really care about.

If that's right, then the problem would be that the people didn't believe one party's story. And the opposition's story, or persons, were somehow much more plausible to them. And we should probably unpack all that, and tell the DP why their narrative failed as badly as it did, within that electoral process, and better still, how they might make their story more credible.

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.

Yes, but that will only aid the electoral process if there is also adequate messaging within a plausible story, by plausible agents. People have to not just find their lives improved, but also know who did it, and how. After all, the DP is shortly not going to be in power. Their current track record, their last batch of policies, and the stories they told about those, and the people they offered as electable have failed resoundingly to convince the people. I don't think the most ardent Democrat could doubt that. And I think anybody who has a stake in the Democrat Party's future is going to want to hide his head in the sand about that, either.

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.

Well, they haven't improved these things in the last four years, manifestly; or at least we can say the electorate hasn't thought of what they've done as the kind of improvement the DP needs to do. Their promises and policies also clearly did not convince; and we could wonder if their personnel were entirely convincing, as well. That's kind of indisputable, given the result: something went very, very wrong.

But you're right about the need for a more plausible "drive toward societal improvement." And lacking incumbency, the DP will have to regroup around new promises about those things. So we might as what sorts of policies, promises, people and narratives might bring the DP back into electoral competitiveness. Or we could just let them make the same mistakes, of course...which would hand the next election to their opponents, and also mean the two-party electoral process was really only a one-party electoral process: but I'm not sure that's in the democratic interest.

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.

Of course, of course. Yes, I agree.

But "concrete, measurable impacts" are easier for an incumbent party than for an aspiring one. And in the new session, the DP is going to be in the position of the aspirants, not the incumbents. The Repubs will have to perform better that the Dems, obviously, if they want to retain their public favour; but the Dems will have to operate from the position of those with limited leverage or opportunity to produce the "concrete, measurable impacts" you mention, and saddled with at least the public perception of a rather poor record on that score. So everything will depend on the quality of that narrative. Voters will have to believe, sight unseen, that the Dems plan is better than that of their opposition, their people more capable, their policies more likely to create desirable results, and so forth.

But, as they say, "the devil is in the details" on that. So we might turn to asking exactly WHAT narrative the Dems should be looking to create.

[Impenitent]

too many people say why better myself when the democrats will steal from those that have and give a tiny portion of the spoils to me...

utopia

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

too many people say why better myself when the democrats will steal from those that have and give a tiny portion of the spoils to me...

utopia

-Imp

Maybe so.

But I'm trying to stay with the topic: namely, how to retain a viable two-party system, in the face of the last election. And the changes, very clearly, need to be on the Dems side, since they failed to appeal to most people in the US. The Repubs can claim a win, but the Dems certainly can't: and unless they want to be relegated to irrelevance and yield the field to their opponents, it would seem that the Dems had better pull up their boots.

The main question, then, is exactly how do they get that done?

I think it means, at the very least, a serious change in their ideology, their advocacy strategy and the sorts of candidates they're fielding. I don't think the necessity of that can really be in doubt, even for the most ardent DP supporter.

But how?

[LuckyR]

Well elections turn on different things, thus there can be different solutions for losses. Some turn on the charisma at the head of the ticket. Reagan, Clinton, George W and Obama were this type of election cycle, as was this last election. Some are "throw out the party in power" elections, this last one had some of this sentiment as well. And lastly some are economy elections, often in mixture with the throw them out, and again this last election had that as well.

Can you imagine this last election with both parties proposing the exact same messages, but Trump isn't on the ticket, instead it's Vance? Nowhere near as successful, clearly Trump's personal appeal played a huge role.

As to the economy, the Democratic admin was in charge of a great stock market run, which benefited many, but if John Q Public is doing poorly because of something the presidency has little to no control over, such as post pandemic inflation, folks want to throw the bums out, which is basically bad luck. The average voter can't grasp that nuance.

[Impenitent]

too many people say why better myself when the democrats will steal from those that have and give a tiny portion of the spoils to me...

utopia

-Imp

Maybe so.

But I'm trying to stay with the topic: namely, how to retain a viable two-party system, in the face of the last election. And the changes, very clearly, need to be on the Dems side, since they failed to appeal to most people in the US. The Repubs can claim a win, but the Dems certainly can't: and unless they want to be relegated to irrelevance and yield the field to their opponents, it would seem that the Dems had better pull up their boots.

The main question, then, is exactly how do they get that done?

I think it means, at the very least, a serious change in their ideology, their advocacy strategy and the sorts of candidates they're fielding. I don't think the necessity of that can really be in doubt, even for the most ardent DP supporter.

But how?

the leftist desire for domination will remain with promises of socialist redistribution as their main platform...

the dems will not change anything policy wise... one thing will change however

this election was "we HATE Trump" - that's all they had

Trump will be gone and the dems can only hate on people who provide for themselves (and they will continue as the party of envy)

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

Well elections turn on different things, thus there can be different solutions for losses.

Of course. Yes.

Some turn on the charisma at the head of the ticket.

Hmmm. That's clearly not this last election. Charisma was one of the points upon which the candidate most obviously failed. So I think we can move on to the other solutions you would suggest.

Some are "throw out the party in power" elections,...

Well, that's not really very illuminating, though. Parties get thrown out when the public perceives them to have been a serious failure in some way. And how strong can the incentive for change be, when the status quo is working well? So there always has to be something else involved; people rarely do things merely for the sake of "change for no reason but change."

...some are economy elections,

That might be right. The economy has been truly dismal: gas and groceries sky high, too many taxes for too few benefits, and so on. But who was in power on that one? So if there's an economic explanation, what does the DP now have to do to message that they can and will improve the economy?

Can you imagine this last election with both parties proposing the exact same messages, but Trump isn't on the ticket, instead it's Vance? Nowhere near as successful, clearly Trump's personal appeal played a huge role.

Well, people don't know Vance as well, though they're getting to. And some people truly hate Trump...so that one has to be a wash, I think.

But another factor that's perhaps worth considering is the quality of the team that the Republicans put together. Like Trump or not, he managed not only to get guys like Musk and Ramaswamy on his team, but even the best and most principled of the Dems came over to his side. Gabbard, for example, was a Dem 'rock star' and admired Dem primary candidate -- except that Hillary hated her. If the Dems had run on somebody like Gabbard, I think the Repubs would have had a serious problem on their hands. But for some inexplicable reason, the Dems lost her...and Kennedy...and now, the 'rock stars' of the center Left are taking roles in the Trump administration: some soul-searching on the part of the DP is surely urgently needed, if they're bleeding their best people to the other side.

I think we all saw that the Dems were not offering a team. They had the Big K, but she was so despised that even the Dems themselves refused to give her even one vote in the previous primary, and whom they clearly could not even trust their own membership to support in a new primary, and so had to crown unopposed; and she struggled to manage even a basic interview or to handle any hard question at all. And then they had Elmer Fudd as her running mate, and that was clearly a serious PR mistake, too. But even if they had both been wonderful, who was in the package after them? I don't think anyone ever knew...not even the Democrat faithful.

So there might be something in that: put together a better package of candidates, so that the public sees that you have impressive people targeting each of the specific problems the public perceives. That's something they could try to do. It seems to have helped the Republicans to do that. They weren't just relying on Trump, who was being targeted on many sides anyway.

On the topic of what the public cares about, there's another thing. I think the DP seems more inclined to try to tell the public what the DP wants them to care about than they are to listen to what the public actually cares about. What does seem obvious is that the banging on about abortion being committed to the state level didn't bother people nearly as much as the DP wanted it to. The "Trump's a dictator" meme didn't really catch on, either...as if they forgot that he'd been in power for four years already, and anybody with a memory longer than that of their poodle knew how he'd conducted his admin then. It's very hard to scare people when they have the past as a reference point, and when they can hear and see clips of the various candidates online.

So there are a couple of helpful hints for the DP: better internet presence and less reliance on the legacy media, better candidates, a team, and be more attuned to what the public is actually thinking. Don't try to construct their beliefs for them.

All useful thoughts.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If the Dems had run on somebody like Gabbard, I think the Repubs would have had a serious problem on their hands. But for some inexplicable reason, the Dems lost her...and Kennedy...and now, the 'rock stars' of the center Left are taking roles in the Trump administration: some soul-searching on the part of the DP is surely urgently needed, if they're bleeding their best people to the other side.

It was not for “inexplicable reasons” but for reasons that she, even perhaps better and more consistently than others, explained often and in detail.

Given her orientation within principles, she did not and could not have remained within the Democrat Party.

It is a question of an entire realignment of values and objectives. What is in doubt is how the Republican Party will proceed with “stated purposes” and so many promises.

[Immanuel Can]

It is a question of an entire realignment of values and objectives.

Interesting comment.

If you were asked to help reconstruct the DP, what values and objectives would you tell them to "realign" themselves with?

[Alexis Jacobi]

It is a question of an entire realignment of values and objectives.

Interesting comment.

If you were asked to help reconstruct the DP, what values and objectives would you tell them to "realign" themselves with?

Many speak of an inversion having taken place: the Republican Party has taken on the role, or even some of the principles, and certainly some of the former Left-Progressive social and geo-political agenda, that was formerly the domain of the Democrat Party.

As well, there actually was a time when the Democrat faction would say that it was pro-family and anti-immigration (because excessive immigration affects the earning power of the working man and therefore the well-being of the family).

How strange too that the anti-war stance, typically of the Democrat-Progressive faction, was quite recently taken on by the Republican Party, formerly pro-war, pro-intervention, and always in favor of the use of an aggressive military.

[Immanuel Can]

It is a question of an entire realignment of values and objectives.

Interesting comment.

If you were asked to help reconstruct the DP, what values and objectives would you tell them to "realign" themselves with?

Many speak of an inversion having taken place: the Republican Party has taken on the role, or even some of the principles, and certainly some of the former Left-Progressive social and geo-political agenda, that was formerly the domain of the Democrat Party.

As well, there actually was a time when the Democrat faction would say that it was pro-family and anti-immigration (because excessive immigration affects the earning power of the working man and therefore the well-being of the family).

How strange too that the anti-war stance, typically of the Democrat-Progressive faction, was quite recently taken on by the Republican Party, formerly pro-war, pro-intervention, and always in favor of the use of an aggressive military.

So...assuming that's how it was (I can't say I'm sure of that), am I to understand that you're saying the Democrats should simply revert? That would seem hard to do, if their opponents now hold the pole position on those issues. How would they go about that?

[Alexis Jacobi]

So...assuming that's how it was (I can't say I'm sure of that), am I to understand that you're saying the Democrats should simply revert? That would seem hard to do, if their opponents now hold the pole position on those issues. How would they go about that?

I was distracted when writing that post and couldn't finish my thoughts. But frankly I am not sure if I am the person to ask about what the Democrats should do. I think the US is in a far larger crisis, and for a group of reasons, and I am uncertain how this present mandated presidency will actually pan out. I believe there are more troubles on the horizon.

Presently, it seems to me, the Democrats have been *checkmated* and will flounder as they try to recover their bearings. In their situation I believe they will not *improve* but double-down on their resentful reactions.

[Immanuel Can]

...frankly I am not sure if I am the person to ask about what the Democrats should do.

Well, that is the topic.

Presently, it seems to me, the Democrats have been *checkmated* and will flounder as they try to recover their bearings. In their situation I believe they will not *improve* but double-down on their resentful reactions.

That might be true. But here, we should at least consider what it is they could do that would be better than just being resentful and reactive, or worse, repeating their miscalculations of recent days. They might not do what you suggest, but it might be more productive for them if they did.

In any case, your suggestion that they do an ideological rethink is a good one. Whatever they used to position themselves as (defenders of the working class, welfare agents, health advocates, secure border advocates, free speech advocates, spokesmen for 'the little people,' antiracists, whatever), they've clearly lost that position to the opposition. Whatever ideology's driving them now, it's not at all being appreciated by the democratic public they claim to be serving...or they would have been elected on it. So an alternative is what they need...what should it be?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, that is the topic.

Yes, that is the title of the thread. However the real topic would involve a careful definition of what, in fact, is good for the nation and the people of that nation. And that certainly involves a conversation on what is bad for the nation and what has (as some might say) perverted it. The Republicans, whether sincerely or simply as a political strategy, captured an entire narrative on the theme of *making America great again*. That slogan, if it is analyzed realistically, would necessarily involve a critical analysis of what America is and what America has become. However that question and those questions are fought over tooth and nail. To whose analysis will one recur to explain America?

The Left-Progressive narrative in the Postwar era was one based in largely intelligible and sensible general Liberal-Democratic values. The advocacy was of a sort that average Americans could feel that that party was defending their interests in the realm of labor and also of *sound cultural values*. It is fair and accurate to point out that the Democrat Party in the Postwar, was often a party that honored essential Christian and Catholic values of social fairness, shared prosperity, healthy and strong families, and a general social and economic health.

In the late 50s and early 60s one would have to take stock of a process of radicalization. Consider for example Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin and the Catholic Worker Movement. The existence of nuclear weapons of terrible destructive power and a sort of psychological terror held over people's heads inspired the *ban the bomb* movement and, allied with that, a general social movement to humanize American social culture. And with that a social turn against *militarism* and in a real sense against a culture, driven by powerful economic interests (corporations, etc.) that were perceived as *ruling* and directing America toward dubious ends.

The Catholic Worker believes
in the gentle personalism
of traditional Catholicism.
The Catholic Worker believes
in the personal obligation
of looking after
the needs of our brother.
The Catholic Worker believes
in the daily practice
of the Works of Mercy.
The Catholic Worker believes
in Houses of Hospitality
for the immediate relief
of those who are in need.
The Catholic Worker believes
in the establishment
of Farming Communes
where each one works
according to his ability
and gets
according to his need.
The Catholic Worker believes
in creating a new society
within the shell of the old
with the philosophy of the new,
which is not a new philosophy
but a very old philosophy,
a philosophy so old
that it looks like new.

-- Peter Maurin

James J. Farrell in his book The Spirit of the Sixties: The Making of Postwar Radicalism, focuses on the loose and open-ended philosophy of *personalism* as influencing the entire mood of the Sixties:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Personalism:

Although it was only in the first half of the twentieth century that the term ‘personalism’ became known as a designation of philosophical schools and systems, personalist thought had developed throughout the nineteenth century as a reaction to perceived depersonalizing elements in Enlightenment rationalism, pantheism, Hegelian absolute idealism, individualism as well as collectivism in politics, and materialist, psychological, and evolutionary determinism. In its various strains, personalism always underscores the centrality of the person as the primary locus of investigation for philosophical, theological, and humanistic studies. It is an approach or system of thought which regards or tends to regard the person as the ultimate explanatory, epistemological, ontological, and axiological principle of all reality, although these areas of thought are not stressed equally by all personalists and there is tension between idealist, phenomenological, existentialist, and Thomist versions of personalism.

It seems to me that there is a tremendous social, political and ideological confusion about what values to align with and which to live in accord with. The sane and common-sense philosophy of early Personalism was, in a sense, taken over by far more radical and revolutionary ideological movements in the latter half of the Sixties, and those movements defined a warring posture against US-driven neo-imperialism, the so-called war machine, and advocated for *overthrow* not only of existing political structures but entire social and cultural hierarchies.

Now, one has to take all of this into consideration and then, with these perspectives, turn back to an examination of American culture, the world-scale business empire run by vast and interconnected corporations, the military establishment, and essentially the very source of American wealth operated by those massive corporations, and then to ask questions about what is happening as the Republican Party has coopted a significant part of the formerly Democrat principled narrative and on that basis achieved power.

It is really largely impossible to say how the Trump-inspired agenda will unfold in the coming months and years. There has never been anything quite like it (at least as far as I am aware). One would have to spend some time defining what in fact it is, and I am not sure that this is very clear. As is often the case, the appearance is one thing, but what powers will ultimately drive it -- if one is realistic and cynical -- will likely not change that much.

In any case, your suggestion that they do an ideological rethink is a good one. Whatever they used to position themselves as (defenders of the working class, welfare agents, health advocates, secure border advocates, free speech advocates, spokesmen for 'the little people,' antiracists, whatever), they've clearly lost that position to the opposition. Whatever ideology's driving them now, it's not at all being appreciated by the democratic public they claim to be serving...or they would have been elected on it. So an alternative is what they need...what should it be?

Again, this question cannot be answered until one has defined what specific set of values are the right ones.

At this point I am not at all sure if the Rebublican régime will be able to *make good on its promises* because to do so, at least as I understand things, is tantamount to leading forward a process of establishing socialistic forms.

When you refer to "defenders of the working class, welfare agents, health advocates, secure border advocates, free speech advocates, spokesmen for 'the little people,' antiracists" you are referring to the values, needs and desires of the general populace, and what they advocate for (unless I am wrong) are positions and policies that benefit their communities and their interests, not those of the (so-called) fat cats. It is essentially a platform that allows for, and calls forth, different manifestations of radicalism. And I do not mean that in a Marxian sense necessarily.

[Gary Childress]

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?

Apparently, it would be to deny climate change is happening, oppose mandatory vaccinations, ban abortion, increase the nuclear weapons stockpile, support Israel in the annihilation of Gaza, build a wall and deport illegal immigrants.

\_('_')_/

[Alexis Jacobi]

It seems to me there is another topic that must be broached in order to understand what is happening in America today. My reference point, for the sake of having one, would be Harold Bloom's The American Religion: The Emergence of the Post-Christian Nation (1992).

I think that we -- i.e. people interested in thought about the state of America and what it might portend (and this may not include you or anyone else writing here) -- must consider the issue of religious derangement as well as what I might refer to as religious sanity as one takes stock of the psychological currents running through politics and social ideology.

You have to take into consideration that Donald Trump, by choice or simply by having been assigned to role, has made himself a strange religious figure, reformer and also in some degree a prophet. Very large segments of the American population, who are members of the post-Christian nation Bloom refers to, are trying to keep a religious and even apocalyptic vision alive within their structure of perception, even though in so many ways it is a decayed and decadent religiosity. It is not really grounded in a thorough and articulate theology -- especially a socially conscious theological and ideological platform -- but in deeply psychological, murky, paranoid and projecting notions of godly interventions in American affairs. One clear example of this is what people believe about Trump's slight turning of his head when that shot was fired which, very clearly and without a doubt, would have blown his head off in a reenactment of Kennedy getting his head exploded.

This notion of *providence* and of divine intervention and the sense that some sort of divine intervention is on the verge -- this must be taken into consideration as one examines the American landscape.

One of the things that Bloom explores, and many people are not aware of, is how deeply the America we know has been influenced by important religious awakenings of a mass nature and scale. Myself, I have often thought that much of the Sixties mood and activism -- perhaps one could consider Woodstock? -- was a manifestation of a similar octave of religious awakening. The theme was definitely Christian in a sense. Take for example Joni Mitchell's song Woodstock as a clear example. It is far less the strict theological element that is relevant and much more the sentiment (idealistic enthusiasm) that comes through the song and that moved people (a manifestation of Christian Personalism).

Though it might not seem connected -- I only speculate that it is -- the revivalism, the religious enthusiasm, the deeply paranoid religious visioning and projection among American Evangelicals that has been channeled into the MAGA Movement, must be taken into account as one examines the American scene.

And at the same time -- it is weirdly and I think perversely connected -- the mood of dissatisfaction and opposition to everything associated with *Israel* and the deep-seated belief among some that "America has been taken over by Jews and Israel's interests" and that 'Globalism' is being foisted upon the *true America* of the real patriots.

Alongside this, of course, perhaps stronger (?) is the enthusiastic hysteria of the true-believer Evangelical that aligns himself with Israel, the return of the Jews to Israel as one sign on the road to the Second Coming, and the (completely loco) idea of razing the Temple of the Mount and (literally!) reconstructing the former Temple and reinitiating sacrifices (!)

We have entered here a zone of uncontrollable religious phantasy which can take any form and be inspired and empowered by many different emotionalized moods, hopes, desires and visions.