What exactly is “center” now? And, I truly love what Senator Raphael Warnock always says: it’s not about left and right, it’s about right and wrong. My undergrads are also so simply sick of the lack of morality and the control as you mention by corporate America. Pretty f ing scary all of what is to come. My students give me hope tho.
There is no definitive center. The constant refrain that Dems should "move to the center" is meaningless including this essay. We need to begin to define the terms of the debate instead of leaving it to the likes of Frank Luntz and Newt Gingrich. The gop is so far to the right at this point that moving to the center is equivalent to moving to the left.
The GOP is deep in corruption, not moving to the right. Grift, racism and corruption aren’t conservative values. The terms are meaningless for the Republicans. Even those who consider themselves traditional republicans are in fact just as corrupt as Trump. The only difference is that their corruption is their cowardice and complicity.
I disagree w the last. At end of term this spring, a graduating senior came to me privately and said I am an R, I am a Christian, and Amy I had no idea. There is no question he was being honest and he has used his education to open his eyes. But he will stay an R. But not a maga R. Huge heart; diff theory of how to organize society. We do need the American debate and I will not make such unilateral assumptions about who these people are.
I fully agree that two honest competing parties would be a valuable improvement on what we have now. But we don’t have that, and won’t for half a generation at least.
If I were young and idealistic, as I was a half-century ago, I hope I would also have enough common sense to see if my party was irredeemably ruined.
So I guess my last sentence should read: “The only difference is that their corruption is their cowardice, complicity or naïveté.”
I wonder how many of those poll respondents realize that shifting the economy to benefit more Americans and regulating unfair practices by corporations are left wing positions? You describe it as populism, but it's populism that drives things leftward. If populism alone was a big enough driver, I don't know why these respondents wouldn't be satisfied with the current president, the single best populist messenger of the century thus far. If it's because they don't like the substantive part of his platform (jailing minorities, criminalizing abortion, or giving tax breaks to everyone in his bracket), then that's an ideological difference. If you have a raucous, pro people campaign with the intention of governing like Schumer, you're a liar. They can't message like a populist without the ideology behind it without becoming inauthentic
This exactly. I was out drinking with a bunch of mid 30s independent Trump voters (they all hate him now, but thought he was stronger than Biden/Harris). They all said their mental image of a stereotypical Dem was a stockbroker. These are highly educated professionals living in NYC. Every single one wanted economic populism, but didn't associate that with terms like "left" or "progressive" at all. Every single one thought "progressive" meant economic status quo + social messaging.
Shifting the economy to benefit more Americans or regulating business practices are hardly left-wing ideas. The Republicans have been transferring wealth upwards for forty years, through manipulating tax laws and fiscal policy unfairly. Corporations price fix and collude to favor shareholders over customers and employees. Fixing both those things is a reform agenda. It’s not inherently liberal, conservative or moderate.
Populism—even in the genteel form practiced by Bernie and AOC—pits one class against another. Bernie rails against “millionaires and billionaires” as though abolishing them would be a solution. Sorry, more grafting people would quickly fill that void.
The answer is to aggressively reform our laws and to just as quickly reform our enforcement of our laws.
FDR, who faced problems easily as serious as ours, didn’t outlaw the rich. He taxed them and governed them. He ensured that having an excess of wealth did not translate to an excess of power.
Populism under Trump is what we have been enduring for a decade.
Do you think the left of center position is literally the guillotine or something? Taxing them out of their wealth FDR style is functionally identical to writing a law setting an income cap. That level of taxation is worth doing even only to dilute their power over us, but its ultimately just a means to an end. The end being lifting the standard of living for working Americans. I'd be thrilled to have the Democratic center be a New Deal agenda over their current neoliberal austerity framework. Moderates seem to have such an allergy to left leaning alignment that they refuse to call deregulation and tax breaks conservative policy. I'd cut you a deal if I could. We can tax the rich and fund social programs, while you get to still call yourself an ideology free moderate.
I don’t avoid being called left-leaning. I just think some of the things you mention don’t fit that categorization. In the 80s, deregulation was seen as very liberal, and one of its proponents was Ted Kennedy. Now it’s tantamount to corruption.
No one cares what each of us call ourselves. But what’s the obsession with deciding that tax reform that unwinds years of unfsirness, for example, is progressive or moderate.
FDR didn’t tax away anyone’s wealth, he tsxed income. Nothing like an income cap.
Different Toms. But part of the reason I harp on the label is the label has been used by Republicans and Democrats to dismiss policy ideas out of hand. We can acknowledge a factional split in our party, right? I know which one I want to set the party agenda. If it's not a matter of ideology (policy), what the actual distinction between a Sanders and a Manchin? Sure, the actual label doesn't matter more than policy. But the people pushing policies I support have been operating under a handful of common labels, while those pushing policy I am against have been insisting those labels don't matter
Do what you want to do Tom. I just want to communicate that when I support individuals or organizations that want to build social welfare at home and end our henious actions abroad, and deride those who don't, it's not about the labels. It's about the policy and the values underlying them.
“The answer is to aggressively reform our laws and to just as quickly reform our enforcement of our laws.”
Let’s start with ending Citizens United-a ruling that allows corporations and big donors too much power grabbing. And, let’s break up the corporate monopolies that stagnate progress. Essentially bring back adherence to laws.
Exaaaaaactly!! I think so many people don’t actually know what “moving to the center” means. They just think they want harmony and bipartisanship and unity. But all they want is to not see people fighting on CNN. If they actually know what left wing policies are, they want them. We know left wing policies benefit 90% of the electorate. But people think they should want centrism, it’s all crap.
The word “center” means different things to Dem voters. It’s not really a fair poll question. For example, I see it as meaning we keep voting in the same old establishment Dems of the 90s/2000s where they wont support higher wages, Medicare for all etc. So I’m a “let’s go far left and be damned” voter. But I have a lot friends who think “center” means less political strife and working across the aisle and “getting back to normal” Can we do a poll and ask everyone what center means to them?
That’s an extremely important observation. I think voters equate moving toward the center with the idea of achieving a fair compromise and “making progress on the important issues” or something. Most voters really have no idea how to define these terms, and if they do, their definitions are not consistent.
At some point, I realized that if both parties are beholden to campaign contributions from corporations and special interests, and the corporate news media and social media platforms have their agendas driven by Big Money/anti-populist influence then there really is no longer a world (if there ever was) in which Republican equals right wing and Democrat equals left, as so many Americans simplistically define the political spectrum. They are seeking fairness in the “center” between corrupt and more corrupt.
I agree with this. I think when you say “move to the center”, a lot of people think it means continuing to support an establishment that is funded by Wall Street and corporate interests.
This whole thing about everybody wanting populism really comes down to who they want politicians to be working for.
I find the left/right framing confounding because of the swinging pendulum - Nixon (environment) and Reagan (immigration) are, at times, both lefties when placed into today’s framing. This is why I think the left/right debate is a red herring. Voters are confounding but also our language for understanding voter sentiment on issues is constantly shifting.
I agree. I find the left-right-center labels vague and confusing. Is wanting a fair tax system and honest hovernment left or right? The question is meaningless. If we must label everything, how about calling what most voters want a Reform agenda?
Of course “reform” can mean a lot of different things, too, but “centrism” is probably the most meaningless label in terms of standing for anything coherent. The best way to understand it may be to incorporate different points of view—a lot of people are upset at the status quo but do not agree on specifics of what they want to change. For a lot of people “centrist” just means “not socialist.”
Heck, Nixon would probably be called a flaming commie nowadays for his tax policy, which would legitimately put him far to the left of any mainstream politician in the Dem party.
I feel like moving to the center only benefits centrists. There are so many vulnerable people in this country who need real systemic change, and moving to the center might get us elected but it won't help those who need the most help.
I agree with you. I think the problem is trying way too hard to use the left, right, center labels.
The real divide voters seem to perceive is not left versus center, but top versus bottom: concentrated power versus ordinary people. That explains why voters can simultaneously favor moderation on immigration or crime while also demanding aggressive action against monopolies, corruption, price gouging, and concentrated economic power.
I would like us to quit trying to put too-simple labels on what people want. And talk in specifics, as you just fid.
One thing that jumps out from this poll is that Democrats may be overthinking ideology while underthinking psychology.
If only 20% think the party is “too far left” and only 17% think it is “too far right,” then perhaps the electorate is telling us this is not fundamentally a left-versus-right argument at all. Most Democrats appear to want a party they perceive as moderate, stable, competent, and electorally viable.
But that does not mean they want a cautious corporate status quo.
The real divide voters seem to perceive is not left versus center, but top versus bottom: concentrated power versus ordinary people. That explains why voters can simultaneously favor moderation on immigration or crime while also demanding aggressive action against monopolies, corruption, price gouging, and concentrated economic power.
I would also be careful about casually labeling all of this “populism.” Some of what’s described here is not populism so much as reformism — an insistence that institutions and markets should function fairly again.
That distinction matters. Populism can become corrosive when it teaches people that society consists of morally pure citizens versus inherently corrupt enemies. In its harsher forms, it encourages permanent social warfare between classes or groups of Americans.
A reform message is different. Reform says the system has become distorted and needs repair. Populism often says the system itself — and the people associated with it — are fundamentally illegitimate.
Democrats absolutely do need a stronger economic message. But they should be careful not to confuse constructive reform with the kind of perpetual class antagonism that eventually damages social trust itself. We have just been through a decade of the “I’m right and your evil” populism of Donald Trump. Please let’s not counter that by merely splitting the country along different lines.
Take another look at today’s Message Box. Dan’s section four “Voters want Populism” then talks about Reform. Not populism. Even the price discussion is based on Reform measures.
The only people confused by these responses are the consultant class who have been telling candidates that 'moving to the center' means talking about deficits and tax cuts. If you have an actual household, pay a mortgage, have a 10 year old car in need of repairs that gets about 18 mpg, these responses are spot on.
Voters perceptions are not necessarily congruent with reality. Many of those who voted for Becerra thought that he was equally progressive as Steyer, but just not a millionaire. many of those same people would label Jon Ossoff as centrist when what he is is just incredibly charismatic.
I think the problem is that moderation isn’t easily defined. It sounds nice but what does it mean. Voters seem to think the system needs huge changes. If moderation means the status quo, voters definitely don’t want that.
I know this is "message box" but I think that trying to decide where the party should be (left, right, center, etc.) is a wrongheaded approach. I think you (Dan) and others have hit the nail on the head by arguing that you need to be in the communities, and like Mamdani and organizers in Wisconsin and Minnesota, really know and communicate with constituents about what they want. Platner is an example - I would hold my nose to vote for him, but Mainers like him. I'm not enamored with one of my senators, Ron Wyden, but he does do a lot I agree with. I also think he's improved over time. But I do think instead of worrying about the ideology, we as a party need to think about the people. Period. Candidates need to be constantly in the community, and show they have skin in the game. AOC does this. So does Jon Osoff. Raphael Warnock, too. It doesn't mean we also don't need a reckoning with the sexism, racism, and classism in our party by any stretch - and that is what a real autopsy would reveal. Oregon has an organization (https://oregonvbc.org/) that surveys Oregonians about values, and asks them where they stand on a ton of issues. People vote or don't vote for a myriad of reasons, and until candidates and party operatives understand that, they are going to focus on bullshit stuff like "left, write, center" and whether people know what progressive means. It doesn't help that standardized testing in k-12 schools has pushed out civics education - this was a huge part of my early schooling - that and US and State government classes. Now they are so focused on STEM, which is important, and job training, that we aren't raising citizens, we are raising human capital. Whew - didn't know all that was coming.
I feel like many of the respondents to this poll are susceptible to the same “stop talking about trans people“ bro mentality espoused by the right and dipshit podcasters and comedians. I wish that democratic politicians would just own a position of equality and fairness and stop getting caught up in these culture wars! If they collectively presented themselves as fighting on behalf of ALL Americans they wouldn’t have to keep taking these ridiculous namby pamby “don’t upset people in the ‘heartland’” stances.
I don’t know what “center” means anymore. As a progressive and a Christian, it seems like these are folks who are fine with supporting Israel no matter what, and folks that are fine oppressing transgender. The level of education and political views in the left is what I’m not sure about on these two topics, but bottom line, we have to fight MONEY IN POLITICS. To me, it’s the root of corruption, influence, power and voting access.
I really don’t like the premise of the left, right, center questions and don’t think they tell us much of anything. So few voters would be able actually articulate what those positions mean or what policies they entail.
That said I think a lot of people have made good points about what a majority of voters are maybe looking for: anti corruption everywhere, corporate/elite regulation and accountability, pro worker and family policies, fair taxation and less culture war crap. Tack on some serious climate actions and this all seems to fall in what many would say is the ‘not quite’ left wing category.
When one party (the right) is the current version of the GOP, voters saying that Dems should move to the center or right terrifies me and my guess is that a lot of them don’t mean it that way.
Our political terminology is fuzzy, especially if one's aware of how some of these terms have been used in past decades and in other democratic countries. Father Coughlin was a right-wing populist, antisemitic and admiring of fascists (but Wikipedia just informed me that he supported FDR, which I didn't know). Populism in the U.S. was overwhelmingly white and often had at least a tinge of racism -- I'm trying to think of Black leaders who called themselves or were called "populists" and I'm drawing a blank.
"Left" in most democratic countries -- and anti-democratic ones, for that matter -- generally means social democratic, socialist, or communist. Until recently, liberal Democrats avoided and often outright avoided the s-word. "Socialist" was something you got accused of, not a word you applied to yourself. From the late 19th century onward, U.S. labor unions in particular had to disavow any vestige of socialism -- a huge difference from parliamentary democracies, where labor parties habitually talk about class whether they call themselves socialist or not. McCarthyism long predated Joe McCarthy. Why wasn't it called Hooverism after J. Edgar? Maybe because we had at pretty much the same time a president with the same name.
What exactly is “center” now? And, I truly love what Senator Raphael Warnock always says: it’s not about left and right, it’s about right and wrong. My undergrads are also so simply sick of the lack of morality and the control as you mention by corporate America. Pretty f ing scary all of what is to come. My students give me hope tho.
There is no definitive center. The constant refrain that Dems should "move to the center" is meaningless including this essay. We need to begin to define the terms of the debate instead of leaving it to the likes of Frank Luntz and Newt Gingrich. The gop is so far to the right at this point that moving to the center is equivalent to moving to the left.
The GOP is deep in corruption, not moving to the right. Grift, racism and corruption aren’t conservative values. The terms are meaningless for the Republicans. Even those who consider themselves traditional republicans are in fact just as corrupt as Trump. The only difference is that their corruption is their cowardice and complicity.
I disagree w the last. At end of term this spring, a graduating senior came to me privately and said I am an R, I am a Christian, and Amy I had no idea. There is no question he was being honest and he has used his education to open his eyes. But he will stay an R. But not a maga R. Huge heart; diff theory of how to organize society. We do need the American debate and I will not make such unilateral assumptions about who these people are.
I fully agree that two honest competing parties would be a valuable improvement on what we have now. But we don’t have that, and won’t for half a generation at least.
If I were young and idealistic, as I was a half-century ago, I hope I would also have enough common sense to see if my party was irredeemably ruined.
So I guess my last sentence should read: “The only difference is that their corruption is their cowardice, complicity or naïveté.”
mine too!
I wonder how many of those poll respondents realize that shifting the economy to benefit more Americans and regulating unfair practices by corporations are left wing positions? You describe it as populism, but it's populism that drives things leftward. If populism alone was a big enough driver, I don't know why these respondents wouldn't be satisfied with the current president, the single best populist messenger of the century thus far. If it's because they don't like the substantive part of his platform (jailing minorities, criminalizing abortion, or giving tax breaks to everyone in his bracket), then that's an ideological difference. If you have a raucous, pro people campaign with the intention of governing like Schumer, you're a liar. They can't message like a populist without the ideology behind it without becoming inauthentic
This exactly. I was out drinking with a bunch of mid 30s independent Trump voters (they all hate him now, but thought he was stronger than Biden/Harris). They all said their mental image of a stereotypical Dem was a stockbroker. These are highly educated professionals living in NYC. Every single one wanted economic populism, but didn't associate that with terms like "left" or "progressive" at all. Every single one thought "progressive" meant economic status quo + social messaging.
Shifting the economy to benefit more Americans or regulating business practices are hardly left-wing ideas. The Republicans have been transferring wealth upwards for forty years, through manipulating tax laws and fiscal policy unfairly. Corporations price fix and collude to favor shareholders over customers and employees. Fixing both those things is a reform agenda. It’s not inherently liberal, conservative or moderate.
Populism—even in the genteel form practiced by Bernie and AOC—pits one class against another. Bernie rails against “millionaires and billionaires” as though abolishing them would be a solution. Sorry, more grafting people would quickly fill that void.
The answer is to aggressively reform our laws and to just as quickly reform our enforcement of our laws.
FDR, who faced problems easily as serious as ours, didn’t outlaw the rich. He taxed them and governed them. He ensured that having an excess of wealth did not translate to an excess of power.
Populism under Trump is what we have been enduring for a decade.
Do you think the left of center position is literally the guillotine or something? Taxing them out of their wealth FDR style is functionally identical to writing a law setting an income cap. That level of taxation is worth doing even only to dilute their power over us, but its ultimately just a means to an end. The end being lifting the standard of living for working Americans. I'd be thrilled to have the Democratic center be a New Deal agenda over their current neoliberal austerity framework. Moderates seem to have such an allergy to left leaning alignment that they refuse to call deregulation and tax breaks conservative policy. I'd cut you a deal if I could. We can tax the rich and fund social programs, while you get to still call yourself an ideology free moderate.
I don’t avoid being called left-leaning. I just think some of the things you mention don’t fit that categorization. In the 80s, deregulation was seen as very liberal, and one of its proponents was Ted Kennedy. Now it’s tantamount to corruption.
No one cares what each of us call ourselves. But what’s the obsession with deciding that tax reform that unwinds years of unfsirness, for example, is progressive or moderate.
FDR didn’t tax away anyone’s wealth, he tsxed income. Nothing like an income cap.
Different Toms. But part of the reason I harp on the label is the label has been used by Republicans and Democrats to dismiss policy ideas out of hand. We can acknowledge a factional split in our party, right? I know which one I want to set the party agenda. If it's not a matter of ideology (policy), what the actual distinction between a Sanders and a Manchin? Sure, the actual label doesn't matter more than policy. But the people pushing policies I support have been operating under a handful of common labels, while those pushing policy I am against have been insisting those labels don't matter
To me, I would rather see aggressive reform done and make progress along other fronts than waste time on the everlasting argument overlabels.
Do what you want to do Tom. I just want to communicate that when I support individuals or organizations that want to build social welfare at home and end our henious actions abroad, and deride those who don't, it's not about the labels. It's about the policy and the values underlying them.
Bingo with your suggestion!
“The answer is to aggressively reform our laws and to just as quickly reform our enforcement of our laws.”
Let’s start with ending Citizens United-a ruling that allows corporations and big donors too much power grabbing. And, let’s break up the corporate monopolies that stagnate progress. Essentially bring back adherence to laws.
Exaaaaaactly!! I think so many people don’t actually know what “moving to the center” means. They just think they want harmony and bipartisanship and unity. But all they want is to not see people fighting on CNN. If they actually know what left wing policies are, they want them. We know left wing policies benefit 90% of the electorate. But people think they should want centrism, it’s all crap.
I think you are merely being tendencious. How does that benefit anybody?!
The word “center” means different things to Dem voters. It’s not really a fair poll question. For example, I see it as meaning we keep voting in the same old establishment Dems of the 90s/2000s where they wont support higher wages, Medicare for all etc. So I’m a “let’s go far left and be damned” voter. But I have a lot friends who think “center” means less political strife and working across the aisle and “getting back to normal” Can we do a poll and ask everyone what center means to them?
That’s an extremely important observation. I think voters equate moving toward the center with the idea of achieving a fair compromise and “making progress on the important issues” or something. Most voters really have no idea how to define these terms, and if they do, their definitions are not consistent.
At some point, I realized that if both parties are beholden to campaign contributions from corporations and special interests, and the corporate news media and social media platforms have their agendas driven by Big Money/anti-populist influence then there really is no longer a world (if there ever was) in which Republican equals right wing and Democrat equals left, as so many Americans simplistically define the political spectrum. They are seeking fairness in the “center” between corrupt and more corrupt.
I agree with this. I think when you say “move to the center”, a lot of people think it means continuing to support an establishment that is funded by Wall Street and corporate interests.
This whole thing about everybody wanting populism really comes down to who they want politicians to be working for.
I find the left/right framing confounding because of the swinging pendulum - Nixon (environment) and Reagan (immigration) are, at times, both lefties when placed into today’s framing. This is why I think the left/right debate is a red herring. Voters are confounding but also our language for understanding voter sentiment on issues is constantly shifting.
I agree. I find the left-right-center labels vague and confusing. Is wanting a fair tax system and honest hovernment left or right? The question is meaningless. If we must label everything, how about calling what most voters want a Reform agenda?
Of course “reform” can mean a lot of different things, too, but “centrism” is probably the most meaningless label in terms of standing for anything coherent. The best way to understand it may be to incorporate different points of view—a lot of people are upset at the status quo but do not agree on specifics of what they want to change. For a lot of people “centrist” just means “not socialist.”
Heck, Nixon would probably be called a flaming commie nowadays for his tax policy, which would legitimately put him far to the left of any mainstream politician in the Dem party.
I feel like moving to the center only benefits centrists. There are so many vulnerable people in this country who need real systemic change, and moving to the center might get us elected but it won't help those who need the most help.
I agree with you. I think the problem is trying way too hard to use the left, right, center labels.
The real divide voters seem to perceive is not left versus center, but top versus bottom: concentrated power versus ordinary people. That explains why voters can simultaneously favor moderation on immigration or crime while also demanding aggressive action against monopolies, corruption, price gouging, and concentrated economic power.
I would like us to quit trying to put too-simple labels on what people want. And talk in specifics, as you just fid.
One thing that jumps out from this poll is that Democrats may be overthinking ideology while underthinking psychology.
If only 20% think the party is “too far left” and only 17% think it is “too far right,” then perhaps the electorate is telling us this is not fundamentally a left-versus-right argument at all. Most Democrats appear to want a party they perceive as moderate, stable, competent, and electorally viable.
But that does not mean they want a cautious corporate status quo.
The real divide voters seem to perceive is not left versus center, but top versus bottom: concentrated power versus ordinary people. That explains why voters can simultaneously favor moderation on immigration or crime while also demanding aggressive action against monopolies, corruption, price gouging, and concentrated economic power.
I would also be careful about casually labeling all of this “populism.” Some of what’s described here is not populism so much as reformism — an insistence that institutions and markets should function fairly again.
That distinction matters. Populism can become corrosive when it teaches people that society consists of morally pure citizens versus inherently corrupt enemies. In its harsher forms, it encourages permanent social warfare between classes or groups of Americans.
A reform message is different. Reform says the system has become distorted and needs repair. Populism often says the system itself — and the people associated with it — are fundamentally illegitimate.
Democrats absolutely do need a stronger economic message. But they should be careful not to confuse constructive reform with the kind of perpetual class antagonism that eventually damages social trust itself. We have just been through a decade of the “I’m right and your evil” populism of Donald Trump. Please let’s not counter that by merely splitting the country along different lines.
Take another look at today’s Message Box. Dan’s section four “Voters want Populism” then talks about Reform. Not populism. Even the price discussion is based on Reform measures.
The only people confused by these responses are the consultant class who have been telling candidates that 'moving to the center' means talking about deficits and tax cuts. If you have an actual household, pay a mortgage, have a 10 year old car in need of repairs that gets about 18 mpg, these responses are spot on.
Voters perceptions are not necessarily congruent with reality. Many of those who voted for Becerra thought that he was equally progressive as Steyer, but just not a millionaire. many of those same people would label Jon Ossoff as centrist when what he is is just incredibly charismatic.
This is so true.
I’m not sure that there is anything even resembling a solution to the problem that voters are horribly uninformed.
Thank you, Jo. I would also add that I wouldn’t label iowan Turek a moderate. He’s an outstanding candidate who believes in all the right things.
https://www.threads.com/@joshturek4iowa/post/DZau1ZDkzea?xmt=AQG0zMkaYK3aUksuxTUbW3MdIrhXbwUyvn9J9LKQUOALuX5qo3GqNGn4_xvQxi85WPSHMT8U
I think the problem is that moderation isn’t easily defined. It sounds nice but what does it mean. Voters seem to think the system needs huge changes. If moderation means the status quo, voters definitely don’t want that.
I know this is "message box" but I think that trying to decide where the party should be (left, right, center, etc.) is a wrongheaded approach. I think you (Dan) and others have hit the nail on the head by arguing that you need to be in the communities, and like Mamdani and organizers in Wisconsin and Minnesota, really know and communicate with constituents about what they want. Platner is an example - I would hold my nose to vote for him, but Mainers like him. I'm not enamored with one of my senators, Ron Wyden, but he does do a lot I agree with. I also think he's improved over time. But I do think instead of worrying about the ideology, we as a party need to think about the people. Period. Candidates need to be constantly in the community, and show they have skin in the game. AOC does this. So does Jon Osoff. Raphael Warnock, too. It doesn't mean we also don't need a reckoning with the sexism, racism, and classism in our party by any stretch - and that is what a real autopsy would reveal. Oregon has an organization (https://oregonvbc.org/) that surveys Oregonians about values, and asks them where they stand on a ton of issues. People vote or don't vote for a myriad of reasons, and until candidates and party operatives understand that, they are going to focus on bullshit stuff like "left, write, center" and whether people know what progressive means. It doesn't help that standardized testing in k-12 schools has pushed out civics education - this was a huge part of my early schooling - that and US and State government classes. Now they are so focused on STEM, which is important, and job training, that we aren't raising citizens, we are raising human capital. Whew - didn't know all that was coming.
I feel like many of the respondents to this poll are susceptible to the same “stop talking about trans people“ bro mentality espoused by the right and dipshit podcasters and comedians. I wish that democratic politicians would just own a position of equality and fairness and stop getting caught up in these culture wars! If they collectively presented themselves as fighting on behalf of ALL Americans they wouldn’t have to keep taking these ridiculous namby pamby “don’t upset people in the ‘heartland’” stances.
As James Talarico is fond of saying, the issue is not left vs right. It’s top vs bottom.
I don’t know what “center” means anymore. As a progressive and a Christian, it seems like these are folks who are fine with supporting Israel no matter what, and folks that are fine oppressing transgender. The level of education and political views in the left is what I’m not sure about on these two topics, but bottom line, we have to fight MONEY IN POLITICS. To me, it’s the root of corruption, influence, power and voting access.
$65/month?!
I really don’t like the premise of the left, right, center questions and don’t think they tell us much of anything. So few voters would be able actually articulate what those positions mean or what policies they entail.
That said I think a lot of people have made good points about what a majority of voters are maybe looking for: anti corruption everywhere, corporate/elite regulation and accountability, pro worker and family policies, fair taxation and less culture war crap. Tack on some serious climate actions and this all seems to fall in what many would say is the ‘not quite’ left wing category.
When one party (the right) is the current version of the GOP, voters saying that Dems should move to the center or right terrifies me and my guess is that a lot of them don’t mean it that way.
Our political terminology is fuzzy, especially if one's aware of how some of these terms have been used in past decades and in other democratic countries. Father Coughlin was a right-wing populist, antisemitic and admiring of fascists (but Wikipedia just informed me that he supported FDR, which I didn't know). Populism in the U.S. was overwhelmingly white and often had at least a tinge of racism -- I'm trying to think of Black leaders who called themselves or were called "populists" and I'm drawing a blank.
"Left" in most democratic countries -- and anti-democratic ones, for that matter -- generally means social democratic, socialist, or communist. Until recently, liberal Democrats avoided and often outright avoided the s-word. "Socialist" was something you got accused of, not a word you applied to yourself. From the late 19th century onward, U.S. labor unions in particular had to disavow any vestige of socialism -- a huge difference from parliamentary democracies, where labor parties habitually talk about class whether they call themselves socialist or not. McCarthyism long predated Joe McCarthy. Why wasn't it called Hooverism after J. Edgar? Maybe because we had at pretty much the same time a president with the same name.