Reforming the Democrats
two paths
An earlier post dealt with J.D. Vance’s plans for reshaping the Republican party. This one deals with ways in which the rival party might be reshaped.
The Hotelling Model
Imagine voters and candidates as located along a line running from right to left, with each voter voting for the candidate closest to him. If the Democrats nominate a candidate noticeably left of center the Republicans can nominate a candidate just to his right, get a majority of the votes, and win the election, and similarly if the Republicans nominate a candidate noticeably to the right. Both parties want to win, so both nominate centrist candidates, candidates whose positions are those of the median voter.
Improved
It is an elegant model but relies on several unrealistic assumptions. One is that the only thing voters care about is electing their party’s candidate, that a right wing Republican is as happy to vote for and elect a RINO, a Republican In Name Only, as a candidate who shares his right wing views. Another is that outcomes are determined with certainty, that the candidate closer to more voters always wins.
Suppose we drop both assumptions. Republicans and Democrats now face a choice among tactics. They can nominate the candidate most likely to win or they can nominate a candidate they like better, one a little farther right (Republican) or left (Democrat), trading off a lower probability of winning for the chance of a candidate, and policies, they like better.
As a result of the failure of those assumptions, or other unrealistic features of the model, the Democrats run a candidate well to the left of center. The Republicans now have two possible responses. They can run a centrist candidate, even one a little to the left of center, and win in a landslide. Or they can nominate a candidate well to the right of center, take advantage of the off-center position of the opposition to nominate the candidate they actually want and still have a chance of winning. That was the 2024 election.
Now it is the Democrats turn. The victorious Republican candidate this time, like the Democratic candidate in the previous election, is following policies well to his side of center. The Democrats can take advantage of the opportunity that presents to run a centrist candidate and win. Or they can take advantage of the off-center position of their opponent to run a left-wing candidate and have at least a chance of winning.
The party is now divided between advocates of the two strategies. My favorite advocate of the former policy is Kelsey Piper, a Vox journalist, a Democrat, a lady I have a high opinion of.
Kelsey’s Proposal
What would some good unifying demands be for a hostile takeover of the Democratic party by centrists/moderates? I have some ideas....
Every single person in the Biden administration who concealed that the President was unable to discharge his duties should be expelled from the party. (I know there's not really an expulsion mechanism; figure one out). They should never work in Democratic politics again.
The party will not consider for Presidential or Vice Presidential nominees any candidate from a state that is shrinking. If the people voted with their feet against your rule, then fix your own shit before you seek national office. We can call this the Go Away Gavin rule.
Every part of every American city should pass the toddler test: you feel safe walking through it with two toddlers who will try to eat cigarette butts and needles if there are any around to be eaten. If you have to use the subway, the elevators work and fit the stroller.
Americans disagree, profoundly, on all kinds of things, for which we have the marvelous social technologies of freedom, federalism, and minding your own fucking business. No bullying Masterwork Cake Shop, no Presidential intervention on city congestion pricing, cut it out.
We should make acquiring ID documents free and incredibly easy and straightforward and then impose voter ID laws, paper ballots and ballot security improvements along with an expansion of polling places so everyone participates but we lay the 'was it a fair election' qs to rest.
Schools should offer students the opportunity to excel; our falling test scores should be a halt and catch fire moment; middle schools should offer algebra; every kid should be taught to read by 2nd grade. Tracking is good. Dangerous or out of control classrooms are unacceptable.
End the imperial presidency. Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of expanding the president's remit when in power and then being upset when out of power. Grow an ounce of foresight. Only Congress should set tariffs. The president should not have a line item veto of $$
If you want to be a technocracy, you have to be a technocracy with accountability. When you fuck up, you cannot just brush it under the table. If you want to be the party of scientists, you have to hold science to high standards. Make intentional faking of scientific data a crime
Every government process that a normal person might have to interact with, including permitting, licensing, zoning, applying for benefits, and paying taxes, must pass the grandma test: you can explain it to a grandma on the phone and she can do it in under 30 minutes.
Kelsey is a journalist not a politician but she may have some influential allies, if not necessarily ones she likes. The first of Gavin Newsom’s podcasts on Spotify was an interview with conservative influencer Charlie Kirk, largely on the subject of what the Democratic party should do if it wants to regain the majority. In the course of the interview Newsom offended much of his party by coming out against permitting MTF transsexuals to compete in women’s sports:
So in two thousand turns out in twenty fourteen, years before I was governor, there was a law established that established the legal principles that allow the allow trans athletes and women's sports. But the issue of fairness is completely legit. So I completely align with you, and we've got to own that and we've got to acknowledge it.
I think it’s an issue of fairness, I completely agree with you on that.
Other relevant bits from the interview:
By the way, not one person ever in my office has ever used the word LATINX.
the Democratic Party brand has just been crushed.
(Charlie Kirk) Yeah, I mean Minneapolis literally had to hold a special vote saying like should we still have a police department?
(Gavin Newsom) Yeah? That's I mean, I mean, that's that was lunacy.
We live in these filter bubbles. We're talking to ourselves. We're in the sort of yeah, it's Newsmax one, American News, Fox, and then it gets into all the stuff that you guys are doing and everybody else. And meanwhile I'm safe over here at MSNBC and CNN, reading the New York Times, feeling really great about things and having a nice glass of chardonnay, listen to Rachel Maddow
I've never liked this cancel culture.
(Charlie Kirk) Is there a place for a pro-life Democrat in the Democrat Party?
(Gavin Newsom) I Mean there should be.
We do work with ICE. … We coordinate with ICE on the deportation. We've done that over ten thousand times since I've been governor.
I've been saying that to all these mayors … If you can't clean up the streets, we're going to redirect the money.
For the other side of the argument, see the responses to the interview from the Sacramento Bee, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Nation and The California Globe.
also:
Newsom's remarks triggered an immediate backlash from within the progressive movement, with former Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot calling them "disgusting."
She added, "There are kids waking up today in California with this news thinking that their governor hates them, and rightly so."
Kelley Robinson, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, said: "Our message to Gov. Newsom and all leaders across the country is simple: The path to 2028 isn't paved with the betrayal of vulnerable communities—it's built on the courage to stand up for what's right and do the hard work to actually help the American people."
California Representative Sara Jacobs, the vice chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, told Politico, "What's unfair is the targeting of transgender kids and politicians abandoning them for political expediency." (The Democratic Civil War Has Started. Who Will Triumph? Newsweek)
My web page, with the full text of multiple books and articles and much else
Past posts, sorted by topic
A search bar for past posts and much of my other writing
I had to laugh. Right now the Democratic Party is run by its far Left 10-15%. They are typically scorched earth proponents if they don't get their way. I expect the Party to implode, and the more rational 85% or so to regroup and try to rebrand.
Their best hope, which is not all that unlikely, is for Trump to make some gigantic mistake from which there is no recovery. Right now they're out of ideas and out of leaders who might bring new ones.
You might look back in history and ask yourself, "When 'the people' are lost and don't now where to go, what sort of person leads them in a new direction, assuming such a person happens?" Then look at some well-known leaders and ask what unusual variabes they might have.
Well, Moses, Lincoln, Napolean, Ghandi, Hitler, Mao, and many more, seem to come from the periphery of 'the people' but are within enough to be able to identify with the people and offer them a new goal.
When the people aren't lost but need a leader to guide them to a known goal, you may get, if you're lucky, a Washington or a Churchill.
May I point out that, culturally, that describes Trump?
And may I ask what Democrat has those qualities?
Meanwhile the Democrats are organizing a circular firing squad. I tend to suspect that that's because for too many of them the only goal is power, but maybe that's just my anarchist leanings.
The last rightward shift in the Democratic Party was the "New Democrats" in the nineties. Bill Clinton famously repudiated extremists in his own party in the "Sister Souljah moment" and declared "the era of big government is over".
Clinton followed 12 years of Republican presidents. Reagan in particular was wildly popular. In 1984 he won 49 states. It was clear to Democrats that they needed to change. Nowadays, the situation is different. Even in 2024, Trump only won the popular vote by a small percentage. He remains personally unpopular.
I was a child during the Clinton presidency. Does anyone have a better idea than I do how Clinton won this ideological battle and pushed the Democratic party towards the center?