The Democratic Party after Obama

[Stavros]

As the Florida results were coming in Tuesday night, something in the back of mind was telling me that Obama's decision on Cuba was coming into play. While I totally understand the suffering that the Cuban people (both here and in the country itself) have gone through, the time had come to normalize relations with Cuba. The over 50 year old policy that was in place had failed and probably did more harm to Cuba than good. So I don't what know Cuban Americans want the United States to do. We tried regime change there and it literally blew up in our faces.

Having said that, while I think the Trump presidency was inevitable, I think Hillary could have probably done more to make sure she did win it.

I agree with this. In the UK there was a lot of coverage from Florida on both the main TV news feeds (BBC and ITN) and while they did not call the vote correctly this is because they remarked on the high volume of Hispanic voters without making a distinction between those of Cuban origin, and those from Mexico and other Latin American states. Yet we have known for years how arch conservative the Cuban Americans are, so I think the newsmen missed something here because Florida was such an important state to win. I don't recall the reporters interviewing any Cuban Americans. Too much of the focus was on 'angry White Americans'.

[Stavros]

I agree that we have to accept the result, but I think there is room to discuss what sorts of protests do not challenge the legitimacy of Donald's win but rather his proposed policies. I think many of the things he has proposed will violate people's civil liberties. So there is room to strongly indicate that he will be fought by the masses if he does not uphold our constitution. Donald Trump indicated that if he lost he would accuse Democrats of fraud and rigging, which is a very different sort of accusation and would be disastrous to the democratic process.

The loss to Donald Trump was a wake up call that there are a lot of people in swing states who feel alienated. But Donald Trump also risks further alienating people and his rule can mobilize the public. I think it was a perfect storm for Republicans, as we had a very divisive Democratic candidate, mostly due to misogyny, and a candidate who was able to exploit that sentiment because he had no shame and encouraged others not be ashamed of their prejudices either.

But I don't think any of this indicates that the Democrats need to drastically re-vamp their platform. Republicans won by a small margin. Is there a way to win over some of the people in the midwest who would benefit from Democratic policies? I think there is...and I think people will be primed for that message if Donald fails to deliver. But we need to try to encourage people to focus on the issues that matter rather than being sucked into a cult of personality type of election.

There is a reason that it's difficult for either party to retain power for too long, as each new administration creates masses of disappointed people who feel their views are not adequately represented. The demographics in this country do not indicate that Donald can do what he pleases without mobilizing people who maybe weren't as engaged as they might have been. We take it on the chin, hope he doesn't do too much damage, and work on our presentation!

There is a fatal weakness in your post, Broncofan, and this is it:
But I don't think any of this indicates that the Democrats need to drastically re-vamp their platform.
Are you really saying that the Democrats, whose policy platform has not changed now for three decades, should just carry on as if nothing had happened? The Obama Presidency may have been, on balance, more of a success than a failure, but the success it achieved in stabilizing the banking and financial system was not due to some radical economic policy, a Republican admin could easily have done the same. Obama in effect, put stability before change, other than those changes in social policy which enrage the Moral Majority -same-sex marriage for example- but which by conferring rights on citizens makes it harder to roll back, and pointless as these are not 'bread and butter issues' for all but fanatics.

The challenges facing the US are tremendous, both at home and in the world. The New York Times has today defended the best aspects of the Trans Pacific Partnership while everyone else sees it as the symptom of America's woes. If Trump is to have a dominant voice, and if it is isolationist, protectionist and one that raises barriers to trade rather than tearing them down, the Democrats have to decide what they think is going to work -but I don't see how they can oppose international trade deals without accepting the Trump agenda, he is making it an 'either/or' choice, and it is ironic as in Europe the opposition to the other deal, the TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is based on the excess of power they claim it gives to US corporations although TTIP now seems to be heading for the graveyard.

But here is the point: in the 1990s the Clinton Presidency laid to rest the party of Roosevelt. The New Deal is dead and buried, the Unions are really not that important, Blue-collar workers are just one part of the natural constituency of the Democrat Party. But if the party succeeded when it appealed to disaffected Republicans and technocrats, public service workers and first time voters, what happens when those voters no longer feel the party belongs to them and they lose power? I don't have much of an answer, but I can't see how the Democrats can challenge Trump's Presidency of Change if they don't develop a new agenda of change of their own, because if Trump's changes do not materialise the electorate will lose faith in him, but still want change, and if the Democrats are the same in 2018 as they were in 2016, what would be the point?

[blackchubby38]

As for the answer to Starvos' question:

Unless someone from the party can come forward with a way to bring back Regan Democrats into the fold and at the same time address the concerns of minorities, women, and the LGBT community, the party is done. From what I can tell, Elizabeth Warren can do the latter. Her stance against corporations and big banks means she can tap into some of the populist anger that Trump did. But will that anger still be there in four years or will Warren's views be seen as typical liberal ideology attacking capitalism?

If Hillary Clinton couldn't appeal to rural blue collar workers, Warren isn't going stand a chance with them. I also think because of the rhetoric that Trump got away with during the campaign, Elizabeth Warren is probably going to double down on the identity politics.

The sense of dread and apprehension that many Hispanics have been feeling since Tuesday night is going to have them looking for a leader they can get behind. Someone that looks like them. So I can see Joaquin Castro trying to become the new leader of the Democratic Party. Once again, it just can't be about identity politics.

The one person I could see coming out to counter President Trump on the nights he gives his State of the Union Addresses, is New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. While New York is indeed a blue state, there are regions of it that are red. So if he finds a way to take care of them over the next 3 years, I can see him running for president in 2020.

[Stavros]

On one level, Blackchubby, a rational assessment, but on another level it does not address the argument that Trump has broken the two party system and that the whole point of this 'populist revolt' is that they want radical changes to be made to system which they feel no longer works. Trump made a big issue out of 'Broken America' with the claims that decades of corruption and bad deals have shredded employment and production, that decades of liberal bias in the media and education have handed power to minority interests so that nobody can complain about queers and Muslims without being derided as a homomphobe and a racist. That there is in effect an 'original America' -the America of Madison and Adams, of 'God, Family and Country' that has been left behind.

However easily one can debunk many of the myths about 'Broken America', it remains to be seen if the Democrats can do what you suggest to replenish their vote, because it remains to be seen if the party has the policies and the personalities that can create the confidence in the electorate that they have moved on from the Clinton era.

Although the two parties are very different in origin and character, the British Labour Party has found that since the departure of Tony Blair, it is wounded by its failed (rather than its successful) policies, and has reacted by electing a leader whose policy platform could have been written, and probably was, in 1977, with the result that nobody outside the party has any confidence in Jeremy Corbyn, and nobody outside the party believes it has a bright future. I don't think the Democrats are in as bad a position as Labour, but the party in effect has to retain its loyal base while offering something new that taps into the next 25 years not the last 25. I have heard of the Castro twins but don't know much about them, but when there was immediate talk after the election of Michelle Obama emerging as the 2020 candidate you know desperation has set in.

Finally, if you compare the Republicans to the Conservative and Unionist Party in the UK, you find that not only do the Conservatives have their second Woman as leader of the party and Prime Minister (Theresa May), the Home Secretary is a woman (Amber Rudd), the Justice Secretary is a woman (Liz Truss), the Education Secretary is a woman and openly gay (Justine Greening). The Secretary of State in charge of Communities and Local Government Sajid Javid is a Muslim (by origin if not in practice) and Alan Duncan a Minister in the Foreign Office is openly gay. The leader of the Conservatives in Scotland is also openly gay. I don't see the Republican Party offering the US a cohort of senior politicians that looks like the USA and believe this is a major weakness and as long as they ridicule the Democrats as a party of 'identity interest groups' they run the risk of continuing to alienate an important part of the country, exposing hideous divisions that neither party seems able to heal.

[Stavros]

One word on the demonstrations against Trump. I don’t see the point of them. For an American citizen to say, “Trump’s not my president,” entails “That’s not my Constitution.” The demonstrators DO have every right to protest, but I just think they’re doing exactly what we criticized Trump and his supporters for threatening to do should they lose.

I agree, I think it is essential that a difference be drawn between what Trump said he was going to do, and how those changes translate into real policy, as he begins to 'amend' so many within a week of the election result. Although I think there is a danger that if Trump reverses position on too many policies his core voters will feel even more alienated from the process, it would weaken his authority and offer the Democrats a revival in the mid-terms in 2018.
One other indication that Trump might not be Top of the Pops was observed in his election night speech -he may be the first President(elect) since Jimmy Carter not to end a major speech with those three words God Bless America...

[broncofan]

But here is the point: in the 1990s the Clinton Presidency laid to rest the party of Roosevelt. The New Deal is dead and buried, the Unions are really not that important, Blue-collar workers are just one part of the natural constituency of the Democrat Party. But if the party succeeded when it appealed to disaffected Republicans and technocrats, public service workers and first time voters, what happens when those voters no longer feel the party belongs to them and they lose power? I don't have much of an answer, but I can't see how the Democrats can challenge Trump's Presidency of Change if they don't develop a new agenda of change of their own, because if Trump's changes do not materialise the electorate will lose faith in him, but still want change, and if the Democrats are the same in 2018 as they were in 2016, what would be the point?

In several other threads, you've discussed the changing economy and how increasing use of automation changes the nature of work. While this can be ignored for a while, at some crucial point, it becomes important to discuss how increased production only increases well-being to the extent that the benefits are distributed reasonably. Someone with an economics background could make this point by talking about decreasing marginal utility; that two people who are moderately well off (without requiring strict egalitarianism) is a better state of affairs than to have one who is insanely wealthy and one person who can barely subsist. The replacement of people with machines is probably a driving force in creating gross disparities in wealth.

There must be a way to appeal to a subset of Trump voters, but this can only happen if people understand the need for government programs, including healthcare, benefits, labor laws, and other parts of the regulatory state. I believe that increasing divisiveness of the debate will always favor Republicans, because if the campaign is about terrorism, or so-called political correctness, or immigrants running wild, it's not about how we can improve the living conditions of the average person. I think you're right that democrats need to find solutions to modern problems, but I think we also need to do a better job of explaining how we can improve lives. I think it would be a mistake to consider the election a referendum on many of those policies (healthcare etc), since the campaign itself was so unusually volatile.

As for free trade v. protectionism, it's a very complex subject. I generally think protectionism is harmful in the long-run, unless it's a way of allowing American industries with better employment packages to compete with countries that do not have those standards.

[broncofan]

and it is ironic as in Europe the opposition to the other deal, the TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is based on the excess of power they claim it gives to US corporations although TTIP now seems to be heading for the graveyard.
?

This makes the point very well that opposition to trade deals is often based on paranoid, nativist sentiment than concern about fairness in implementing employment standards that ensure a level playing field for domestic businesses.

[blackchubby38]

Bernie Sanders OP-ED piece in the NYT:

http://nyti.ms/2epQ8Q8

[fred41]

Bernie Sanders OP-ED piece in the NYT:

http://nyti.ms/2epQ8Q8

who'd of thought at the onset of the Democratic primary that Bernie Sanders was eventually going to cause so many body blows to Hillary Clinton...there was the difference in their ideology, but I think what killed her was his apparent honesty.

There was an acting NYS Supreme Court Judge (appointed not elected) I knew for whom I had immense respect for. When asked why he wouldn't accept an offered Christmas gift from a clerk who he knew for a time, his answer was that he couldn't accept it ,not because it was improper, but he wanted to avoid the appearance of impropriety...
unfortunately that was something Mrs. Clinton (and of course far too many other politicians ) seems tone deaf towards.

[broncofan]

unfortunately that was something Mrs. Clinton (and of course far too many other politicians ) seems tone deaf towards.

She also was just generally lacking self-awareness for someone in politics. You expect people in politics to be hyper-aware of how they come across...she was only conscious about how she positioned herself with changing political winds, but not how that came across to others. I always considered it phony but relatively innocuous.

We've all worked with people who don't come across as especially genuine but are not out to dupe everyone and are good at understanding the details. All in all, I think she at least meant well...I recognize that could be my democratic stripes showing. But nothing takes place in a vacuum and I did at one point assume that whatever her flaws, they would be eclipsed by Trump's. It just didn't happen that way...I guess one response would be to look for someone beyond reproach, or with less public baggage.