Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi After disastrous election losses in 2010, 2014, and 2016, strategists identified several problems they believe must be remedied to reverse Democratic Party fortunes. These problems include the belief that the party is moving too far to the left, picking bad candidates, and retaining Democratic House leader, Nancy Pelosi, too long. But if the problems plaguing the Democratic Party have been misidentified, then electoral misfortunes faced by Democratic Party will continue.
President Jimmy Carter Those who claim that the Democratic Party is moving “too far left” do not explain what that unsettling phrase means. Instead, some strategists, including President Jimmy Carter, submit that Democrats have an opportunity to capture Independent and disaffected Republican voters by advocating a moderate agenda. But voters are becoming more and more polarized over time and disregarding. Democratic base voters could result in their estrangement. The Democratic base’s movement to the left is not an ideological prescription dictated by some elite party cabal; it is a reaction to changing economic environment.
For the last 30 years, the working- and middle classes have suffered from stagnant wages and declining economic opportunity. Voters who have felt the brunt of economic downturns turned against the establishments of the Democratic and Republican parties. Democratic voters who were presented with a candidate who they considered, rightly or wrongly, someone who they could not count on to fight for their interests, either stayed home or voted for the Republican candidate. And the Republican candidate, sensing the voters’ disillusionment with policies that did not benefit their economic well-being, campaigned on a progressive agenda.
ICE agents arresting immigrants In fact, the mainstream of voters has turned left in their policy preferences. Fifty-nine percent of Americans support single-payer health care; 54 percent of the population support a national $15 dollar minimum wage, and 52 percent support a job guarantee. Majorities of the population support marijuana legalization, trans-identity and rights, and abortion being legal. Even in the area of race relations, 61 percent believe the U.S. should continue making changes to give blacks equal rights to whites. Abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is one policy preference some strategists identify as being too far left. ICE, formed when Homeland Security was established in 2003, consists of three units. The largest unit within ICE, Enforcement and Removal Operations, arrests and deports undocumented immigrants who are inside of the U.S. While some progressives and ICE agents have called for the abolition of ICE, it is not a primary item on the progressive agenda. Some Republicans, for comparison, call for the abolition of the Internal Revenue and Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco. If the mission of ICE is reformed, then many will soften their animosity to it.
Most of the campaign promises Trump made were progressive, although the MSM tended to focus on promises that appealed to the Republican base. Trump’s progressive promises included the following:
Provide more high-paying jobs, especially in manufacturing;
Make the rich pay their fair share of taxes;
Repair the damage done by NAFTA;
Re-build the U.S. infrastructure;
Reduce the price of prescription drugs;
Provide health care that is cheaper and better than Obamacare;
Pull out of middle-Eastern wars;
Reform campaign finance; and
Ban lobbying by former government officials for five years.
Trump tied many of his progressive agenda promises to the Republican base. For example, Trump linked providing more high-paying jobs to building a wall to keeping undocumented immigrants out of the country, withdrawing from the Tran Pacific Partnership and the Paris climate accord. This linkage gave Trump a way to appeal to both his hard-core conservative base and to pull in many voters seeking economic change at any cost. These voters included Democrats who had supported Obama as well as the so-called forgotten white voters who had given up on voting. Democrats who lament the party’s turn to the left because they fear losing independent centrist voters seem to ignore the swing voters Trump picked up with a progressive agenda.
Provide more high-paying jobs, especially in manufacturing;
Make the rich pay their fair share of taxes;
Repair the damage done by NAFTA;
Re-build the U.S. infrastructure;
Reduce the price of prescription drugs;
Provide health care that is cheaper and better than Obamacare;
Pull out of middle-Eastern wars;
Reform campaign finance; and
Ban lobbying by former government officials for five years.
Trump tied many of his progressive agenda promises to the Republican base. For example, Trump linked providing more high-paying jobs to building a wall to keeping undocumented immigrants out of the country, withdrawing from the Tran Pacific Partnership and the Paris climate accord. This linkage gave Trump a way to appeal to both his hard-core conservative base and to pull in many voters seeking economic change at any cost. These voters included Democrats who had supported Obama as well as the so-called forgotten white voters who had given up on voting. Democrats who lament the party’s turn to the left because they fear losing independent centrist voters seem to ignore the swing voters Trump picked up with a progressive agenda.
Andrew Gillum, Democratic Candidate for Governor of Florida Some pundits also express regrets about what they call the party’s selection of “flawed” candidates. Specifically, they name Keith Ellison, Randy Bryce, and Andrew Gillum as candidates with whom Democrats should not become too enamored. But these candidates went through the primary process to win the nomination and garnered enough votes to look, at first blush, like strong candidates. Democrats who don’t like the outcome of the primary process then they should propose another procedure for selecting candidates, then they should put it on the table and see who else favors it. Perhaps they would like to return to the era of when candidates were selected in smoke-filled rooms. Regardless of how candidates are selected, they are likely to have some flaws. It might behoove Democrat voters to act like Republicans usually act and support the candidates who won the primary.
Finally, some Democrats attack the House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi. They raise two reasons for replacing Pelosi. First, she has been the head of the House Democrats for more than 12 years, including during Democratic losses in 2010 and 2014. These Pelosi critics do not hold her responsible for the House losses and laud her performance in keeping the Democratic caucus together under difficult circumstances. Rather, they simply flirt with ageism and assert she has been the leader for too long. If longevity is a valid criterion for a change in leadership then Warren Buffet, the head of Berkshire Hathaway since 1970; Michael Tilson Thomas, the Music Director of the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra since 1995, ; and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Supreme Court Justice for the last 25 years, are also imperiled. It is especially ironic that as the party becomes more progressive and willing to acknowledge its working and middle-class roots, Pelosi who has faced criticism in the past for being too progressive, is still facing criticism for being out of step with the party.
 Ruth Bader Ginsburg |  Warren Buffett |  Michael Tilson Thomas |
Senator Mitch McConnell The second reason given for replacing Pelosi is that her poll numbers are so low among voters she may be a millstone for other Democratic candidates. A summary of recent polls found that Pelosi has an unfavorable rating of 49 percent versus a favorable rating of 29 percent. Over 20 percent of the respondents were undecided, indicating substantial uncertainty about how Pelosi should be judged. In another CNN poll, 34 percent of respondents said Pelosi would be a factor in how they voted. Pelosi’s low approval ratings are the result of both her effectiveness in driving Democratic legislation through the House, blocking Republican legislation and Republican vilification for her effectiveness. Before the 2010 midterms Republicans used Pelosi as a surrogate for the more popular President, Barak Obama. In the run-up to the 2012 election, the Republicans featured her in television ads seven times more than Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader. And in the run-up to the 2016 election, they featured her three times as often. Although some pundits have called Pelosi the “strongest and most effective speaker of modern times,” Pelosi is a woman. And the more effective women politicians are, the more unpopular they are.
Nonetheless, some Democrats are willing to replace one of the most effective House leaders in modern times with someone who is untested and almost certainly not as effective as Pelosi. In effect, these Democrats, pretending to be young Turks, seem willing to cede the selection of their House leadership to Republicans. The notion that Pelosi is a millstone around the necks of Democrats running for office is belied by two points. If the Democrats take the House, then it will be difficult to say that Pelosi undermined their efforts to re-take the House. And because only Democrats who have won their election can vote for the House leader and it seems difficult to argue that Pelosi kept individual candidates from winning. If Democrats submit to Republican vilification of their most effective leader, then they will merely prolong their legislative weakness. Mitch McConnell has served as the Republican Senate Leader since 2007 (Majority Leader since 2015), is considered an effective leader, and has a disapproval rating of over 50 percent. It makes more sense for Democrats to vilify Republican Senate Leader, Mitch McConnell than to accede to Republican vilification of Nancy Pelosi.
Nonetheless, some Democrats are willing to replace one of the most effective House leaders in modern times with someone who is untested and almost certainly not as effective as Pelosi. In effect, these Democrats, pretending to be young Turks, seem willing to cede the selection of their House leadership to Republicans. The notion that Pelosi is a millstone around the necks of Democrats running for office is belied by two points. If the Democrats take the House, then it will be difficult to say that Pelosi undermined their efforts to re-take the House. And because only Democrats who have won their election can vote for the House leader and it seems difficult to argue that Pelosi kept individual candidates from winning. If Democrats submit to Republican vilification of their most effective leader, then they will merely prolong their legislative weakness. Mitch McConnell has served as the Republican Senate Leader since 2007 (Majority Leader since 2015), is considered an effective leader, and has a disapproval rating of over 50 percent. It makes more sense for Democrats to vilify Republican Senate Leader, Mitch McConnell than to accede to Republican vilification of Nancy Pelosi.
The notion that Democrats can go too far left tries to frame current political realities in terms of an older economic environment. Parents need health care for their kids and are unlikely to reject it because they believe it is too far to the left. Similarly, many of those working two or three jobs to make ends meet would welcome government help. Perhaps voters who have stable jobs, good salaries, and adequate health care, may pose the question, “are the Democrats possibly going too far to the left?” Many other voters know the answer.