...War on Progressive Populism
-by Protect Democracy
Democratic operatives in the world of think tanks, “liberal” media, and the consultant community, are looking at recent election results and seeing their grip, and consequently, their big donors’ grip, on the party slipping away. They are at a fork in the road, and they can choose to embrace the populist progressive agenda of their rising stars, and the populist, anti-status quo trend that is taking over the developed world, or they can resist and spend their resources discrediting the progressive movement. Recent history doesn’t give us reason to be hopeful (see Sanders, Bernie).
We experienced the preferences of the party smart people in 2024. The DCCC couldn’t find bus fare to go help a progressive populist flip a winnable seat in New Jersey, but had limitless millions of dollars to spend on the “moderate” corporate Dems across the country who had less chance of winning than Ted Cruz in a personality contest.
The “liberal” media outlet of choice for the past-their-sell by-dates DLC Dems, The Atlantic, and its neolib/neocon staff writer, Jonathan Chait, decided to publish ‘irrefutable’ evidence that voters won’t elect progressive populists. Their proof? In 2024, Trump did better in Trumbull County Ohio, which benefitted from President Biden’s investment in clean energy infrastructure, than he did against Biden in 2020, by a full six points. Totally ignored in their analysis was the populist, anti-neoliberal trend across their state and the country. It also ignores the fact that voters in 2024 were not voting for Joe Biden, but for Kamala Harris, who eschewed Biden’s populism. Conveniently ignored was hardcore progressive populist Senator Sherrod Brown lost his reelection bid to car dealership mogul and Trump acolyte Bernie Moreno by less than 4 points, while at the top of the ticket, the Harris campaign, lost the state by more than 11 points. Harris lost Trumbull County by 17 points, while Brown lost it by less than 6.
Across the state line in Beaver County, Pennsylvania, progressive populist and former Bernie Sanders delegate Congressman Chris DeLuzio outperformed the top of the ticket by 6 points. Beaver County has a history of deindustrialization and a big blue-to-red swing in voting patterns, similar to that of Trumbull County, Ohio. (DeLuzio did lose the parts of the district that are in that bright red county, but won his seat in Congress by cleaning up in the rest of the district).
In Nebraska, economic populist and former union president Dan Osborn, running as an independent, lost his race to unseat an incumbent Republican senator by less than 7 points. The Harris ticket lost that state by over 20 points. In Arizona, populist Ruben Gallego, a member of both the Blue Collar Caucus and the Progressive Caucus, beat Trump acolyte Kari Lake in the state’s Senate race, while Harris lost the state. Gallego outperformed the top of the ticket by 8 points. There are many more examples across the country. The Atlantic ought to get a refund on its cherry picker.
A few years ago I was excoriated by a “moderate” Democratic member of Congress, one who I would call a charter member of the Other DNC (the Do Nothing Caucus) after I told him I was supporting the young progressives who were running for offices up and down the ticket. He said “These people are trying to change our party!” I replied, “They’re trying to change it back.” (He retired, and much to his chagrin, was replaced by a progressive populist).
The western world has seen trend towards populism and anti-incumbent voting patterns over the past decade, as the working classes and middle classes search for alternatives to the neoliberal consensus that has taken away their financial security to enrich the wealthiest few. Whether the shift has been left (Mexico, Brazil, UK), or right (Argentina, Italy, etc), it has been away from the status quo. The Atlantic responds by defending neoliberalism.
Not to be outdone, one of the think-tanks-of-choice for the past-their-sell by-dates DLC Dems, The Brookings Institute, decided to take a different route to defending the neoliberal order. It claims that the ultrarich haven’t necessarily taken over American politics because ultrarich, self-funding candidates don’t always win elections. While acknowledging that money does affect politics and decision making, The Brookings report is inconclusive as to whether or not the agenda of the ultrarich aligns with the interests of society as whole. (I have a clue for them— it doesn’t.)
The neoliberal model has long term detrimental effects on democracy. The Guardian published an article this week about the loss of faith in democratically-elected governments among the younger generation. It rightly points to an economic system that has left much of the under 45 cohort living in states of stagnation and financial insecurity, while seeing those at the top grow wealthier and wealthier, as a primary cause for loss of faith in democracy. The article also discusses the case of post-Soviet Russia, in which forced neoliberal policies drove tens of millions of people into poverty while creating a handful of billionaire oligarchs, as being a nation in which a vast majority of the population sees western style democracy as a problem, not a solution.
The late British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, who promised that neoliberal reforms would bring freedom but instead brought poverty and despair, responded to the question, “What was your greatest accomplishment?” She responded, “Tony Blair New Labour. We forced our opponents to change their minds.” (New Labour is Britain’s version of our DLC Democrats). The Democratic establishment is too busy trying to hold on to its power over the party to notice that it has been taken for a ride by the right. The re-election of Trump should be a warning sign that it’s time for the to get on board the populist train. The party leaders are still trying to push the train in the opposite direction.
Comments