{"id":2023,"date":"2018-03-23T12:17:24","date_gmt":"2018-03-23T16:17:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/000af36.netsolhost.com\/wordpress1\/?p=2023"},"modified":"2018-03-23T12:17:24","modified_gmt":"2018-03-23T16:17:24","slug":"left-right-center","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/2018\/03\/23\/left-right-center\/","title":{"rendered":"Left, Right, Center"},"content":{"rendered":"

Tom Edsall\u2019s recent column<\/a>, as always, is well researched and thoughtful but reinforces the idea that the Democrats must choose between \u201cliberal\u201d or \u201cmoderate\u201d candidates. I disagree. The copy editor also chose a poor headline: \u201cShould Democrats Embrace the Center or Abandon It?\u201d<\/p>\n

The problem is first, the definition: What is a liberal Democrat and what is a moderate one? Put another way, what is a centrist?<\/p>\n

One Democrat supports abortion but with late-term restrictions, background gun checks but not an assault weapons ban. She also supports the Dreamers and a $15 minimum wage. Another supports unfettered abortion, a ban on all but long guns for hunting, a stricter immigration policy but no minimum wage increase. Which is the centrist? Can you vote for both or neither?<\/p>\n

Edsall falls into the trap many do: He wants a clear battle of black vs. white, or in this case liberal vs. moderate. But Democrats need to escape this straight jacket. I happen to support a ban on high magazine semi-automatic guns. I support a woman\u2019s right to choose. I support the Dreamers. I support transgender rights. But I can support a Democrat who is willing to raise taxes, consider dramatic changes in tax laws that engender a more level economic playing field and believes that healthcare costs must be dramatically reduced\u2014even if that candidate doesn\u2019t support a semi-automatic weapon ban, believes there should be some restrictions on late-term abortions, supports tighter immigration enforcement and believes transgenders should use a gender neutral bathroom.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s because for me, the most important issue in this country is the economic stagnation of the middle class and income inequality. And I think many Trump voters would agree. Offering solutions to the economic question has a great chance of minimizing the importance of many social issues with enough voters to provide Democrats with a comfortable margin of victory and a solid grasp on both the legislative and executive branches of the federal government and in many cases, state governments, too.<\/p>\n

Naysayers will argue that voters vote emotion, not financial interests. The failure you feel when you can\u2019t send your kids to college is an emotion. The fear you won\u2019t have enough for your old age is an emotion. Your despair that you can\u2019t feed your kids is an emotion.<\/p>\n

The challenge is encapsulating those messages for the rallies, fleshing out plans on candidate websites, and tying the costs with a direct source of income. Speak boldly, confidently, measuredly. Candidates also have to restore in voters the faith that government can help them. That may be the biggest challenge of all.<\/p>\n

Regarding Coner Lamb\u2019s recent win in a conservative Pennsylvania House district election, Edsall states, \u201cAmong Lamb\u2019s constituents, cultural liberalism is, consequently, a liability \u2014 even fatal, electorally speaking.\u201d Funny, Trump\u2019s immoralism was not a problem for white evangelicals because they thought he would shake up things and represent their economic interests. Remember during the campaign, Trump was not clearly anti-abortion or anti-gay and he was clearly immoral.<\/p>\n

Edsall also makes a statement that begs explanation: \u201cInsofar as Democrats place a higher priority on purity than viability, they may be risking an indeterminate extension of the Trump era.\u201d Really? And even if that were true, does that mean electoral defeat? It seems that the GOP has had tremendous electoral success by emphasizing purity over viability, too. It has now caused them governing problems, but not voting problems.<\/p>\n

Democrats do need a big tent but not no tent. The congressional primary in Illinois pitted a renegade endorsed by several liberal groups against the incumbent Dan Lipinski. He apparently opposes abortion, marriage equality and Obamacare. The question I have is, what makes him a Democrat? If it is an aggressive economic reform agenda and I was in his district, I might need to calculate how successful he might be in thwarting Democrats on abortion, equality and healthcare vs. how likely a more liberal candidate can win the district. And in the general election, am I willing to allow the election of someone who opposes all<\/em> that I support?<\/p>\n

In Nebraska, the former Democratic congressman running for a House seat<\/a>, Brad Ashford, \u201cis to the right of many in the Democratic Party on abortion. He backs abortion rights but has said he\u2019s open to some restrictions late in pregnancy.\u201d<\/p>\n

How many Democrats support abortion with no restrictions? What if in the future a test can reveal the color of a child\u2019s eyes. Would they support a woman who wants to abort a child a week before it is due because she learned the child\u2019s eyes were brown and not blue?<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, according to the same Politico article, \u201cprogressives are taking solace in forcing Lipinski to the left on several issues, including immigration and the minimum wage.\u201d Progressives, that\u2019s progress!<\/p>\n

Lamb says he\u2019s personally opposed to abortion, but wants it to remain legal. That\u2019s all we can ask. We\u2019re electing him to be a legislator, not our pastor. He also clearly supports economic populist ideas that progressives want.<\/p>\n

In a recent Rolling Stone<\/em> article<\/a>, \u201cThe president of the United Mine Workers, Cecil Roberts, summed up the reasons why white people were about to vote for a Democrat here, hailing Lamb as \u2018a God-fearing, union-supporting, gun-owning, job-protecting, pension-defending, Social Security-believing, sending-drug-dealers-to-jail Democrat.\u2019\u201d I\u2019ll take four out of six. (I don\u2019t care about his fearing God.)<\/p>\n

In think Jonathan Chait sums it up nicely in a New York Magazine<\/em> article<\/a>, \u201cRepublicans have used ethnonationalist themes for decades to sell voters on an unpopular economic agenda: Election messaging is all American flags, crime, and being tough on terrorism, while the policy agenda is about lax business regulation and regressive tax-cutting.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis disconnect between politics and policy is Republicans\u2019 weakest point. Their strategy can be hacked.\u201d<\/p>\n

Tim Ryan, who ran against Nancy Pelosi for speaker last year, may be trying to justify an overall move to the center by Democrats, but he\u2019 right when he says in The Rolling Stone<\/em> article, \u201cthat Lamb \u2018embodies to me what the next iteration of the Democratic Party is going to look like. Veterans, working class, really representing people who are underemployed, who were maybe making some decent money 10-15 years ago but aren’t now.\u2019\u201d There are a lot non-veterans, upper middle class, economically secure voters who can get behind that message.<\/p>\n

I am not trying to make the argument that\u00a0 Dems need to be more \u201cmoderate\u201d or \u201cmove to the center.\u201d I think the message is more one of emphasis, not an either\/or. I support abortion rights, gay rights, better race relations, immigrants, gun control and a higher minimum wage. But if I were a candidate that\u2019s not what I\u2019d lead with. The greatest challenge this country faces is income inequality. Once we fix that, some of those other issues become irrelevant in an election. Not for all voters, for sure, but enough to give the Democrats the chance to change this country for the better. I think that will also give more of those value voters a reason to have a conversation about their issues and compromise.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Tom Edsall\u2019s recent column, as always, is well researched and thoughtful but reinforces the idea that the Democrats must choose between \u201cliberal\u201d or \u201cmoderate\u201d candidates. I disagree. The copy editor also chose a poor headline: \u201cShould Democrats Embrace the Center or Abandon It?\u201d The problem is first, the definition: What is a liberal Democrat and… Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2023"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2023"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2023\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2024,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2023\/revisions\/2024"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2023"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2023"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2023"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}