08 Mar It’s the Democrats’ Fault

“Does the Democratic Party Have a Future?” – The Lonely Realist

James Carville, the Democratic Party’s uber-strategist, recently published an editorial in the New York Times that sets out his plan for Democratic Party success. Sadly, his proposals repeat the mistakes that have bedeviled voters Democrats for the past 10+ years by focusing on perceived Republican Party negatives while, at the same time, failing to articulate substantive Democratic Party-wide policies.

Carville’s strategy first calls for Democrats to take a “tactical pause,” acting as passive observers to “[Republican Party] dysfunction [that] paralyzes their House caucus and ruptures their tiny majority.” That’s the same “watch how bad the other guys are” strategy that Democrats vainly pursued during Trump 1.0 and that Kamala Harris unsuccessfully pursued in 2024. Voters need to know which policies their elected officials sponsor…, not what or who they’re against. The Democrats have failed to explain themselves. Returning to the discredited strategies of the past will not restore Democratic Party credibility. Moreover, if the Democratic Party adopts the platform promoted by the Progressive Democratic Caucus, it will lose any chance of being the majority party. Voters also won’t be persuaded by the vacuous sloganeering repeated by Carville that calls for “protecting Medicare, Medicaid, worker benefits and middle-class pocketbooks.” That may sound good to those running for gerrymandered seats, but it doesn’t capture undecided voters. They want specifics.

Carville correctly observed that Trump 2.0 “is hellbent on dismantling the federal government,” precisely the platform Donald Trump ran on. Elon Musk’s actions plus the President’s Executive Orders have been executing that platform’s policies…, in the process breaking glass everywhere. Deconstructing America’s government is confusing and causes problems…, but that was the point! The difficulty with broken glass is that the shards cannot be glued back together and also bloody those in close proximity. As a consequence, some voters, perhaps many, will become disenchanted. How the Trump Administration will respond is unknowable. Will Trump 2.0 dismantlement result in a simple downsizing, draining “the swamp” and substituting leaner, better-organized and more effective government? Or will Trump 2.0 truly deconstruct America’s agencies and institutions, leaving glass shards lying around for others to clean up?

Carville is correct that the Trump 2.0 disruptions invite chaos…, but they don’t guarantee turmoil or anarchy. Moreover, Carville fails to provide a policy-specific alternative. What do the Democrats propose to do to rebuild the soon-to-be dismantled Federal government? What are the Dems offering in terms of better, more balanced government institutions? Other than repeating the Democratic Party mantra of protecting and providing for middle-class Americans, Carville’s only recommendation is that Democrats “take time to regroup, look forward and make decisions about where we want to get to over the next two years.” That’s too slow, too little and reflective of internal Democratic Party disorganization and disagreement. The Democratic Party needs a cohesive. “big tent” plan for a well-functioning and well-balanced Federal bureaucracy. Tellingly, neither its leaders, the Democratic National Committee nor the Democratic Party Caucus has such a plan. (Needless to say, another amorphous Build Back Better strategy would be an unwelcome repetition.)

American history shows that both Democrats and Republicans pursued laissez-faire capitalism until the 1930s when, in response to the Great Depression, the FDR Administration enacted comprehensive nation-wide policies overseen by Executive Branch agencies that thereafter successfully balanced capitalism and Federalism. That balance finessed subsequent economic upheavals, creating what many believed would be, and for decades was, an ever-expanding economy. That balance evaporated following the combined economic impact of Great Society programs, euphoria over the end of the Cold War, and the allure of 21^st Century two-party Statist spending. ”America can afford everything” is a fantasy. Annual deficits are now $2 trillion. Smaller Deficits over the past 20+ years have led to unrepayable Federal debt >$36.5 trillion, a subject frequently discussed by TLR. What was once a manageable Federal bureaucracy and an economy balanced among high-functioning capitalism, national defense, and a broad-based safety net became unbalanced. The Democratic Party needs to generate a plan that addresses these and other pressing American problems. It needs to advocate policies that reasonably and rationally restore the balance, not by duplicating the mistakes of the past 60 years, but by latching onto pragmatic alternatives.

Although left-wing Democrats constitute a minority of Democratic Party supporters, they have become the Party’s voice, advancing a progressive agenda, including tax policies that they unconvincingly argue will eliminate inequality by more than filling Federal government coffers. Progressives would use such revenue to fund bigger government to provide food, clothing, shelter, medical care and education for all, impose rigorous business regulation and deploy Federal funds for infrastructure and environmental protection. Unfortunately, no country can afford to do all things for everyone. A balance must be reached. Moreover, voters have been unimpressed by the higher tax proposals, seemingly limitless entitlements and identity issues advocated by Progressives.

This was a criticism recently voiced by the centrist Democrat group Third Way, which urged Democrats to push back “against far-left staffers and groups that exert a disproportionate influence on policy and messaging.” All well and good concerning what Democrats should NOT do, but what should the Democratic Party be offering?

Carville admits that the Party has “no clear leader.” Unlike the Republican Party, Democrats have no single voice…, or even several voices singing the same tune. That’s a huge problem – call it Strike 1. It also has no clearly-defined center with goals and policy priorities that resonate with middle-America. Call that Strike 2. The Democratic Party today is simply the anti-Trump party. It relies on 20^th Century mainstream print and TV while ignoring social media (used effectively by the Republican Party via Truth Social, X and influencers (through memes, TikToks and podcasts) inside and outside the White House), and shrieks speaks with multiple voices, too many of which advocate progressive policies.

Successful American Constitutional democracy requires two competing political parties. If the Democratic Party continues to be unmoored in political reality, lacking strong, popular and centrist policies, it will soon lose its place as America’s “big tent” party a competitor to the Republican Party. Mr. Carville and his colleagues ought to be giving that prospect deep and immediate thought.

Finally (from a good friend)