For Democrats, Where to from Here: A Tale of Two Elections
In Wisconsin, the Republican Party is becoming broader, the Democratic Party narrower.
That is not the way it was supposed to be. The story line after the 2012 election was that the Republican Party was toast. The demographic trends across the country would ensure Democratic majorities for the foreseeable future. The Black, Hispanic and Asian populations, all reliably Democratic, were growing. Caucasians, who tended to be Republican, were a diminishing share of the voting population. The young, growing up and becoming voters, were more liberal than the elderly who were dying.
What happened?
It was only eight years ago – it seems much longer -- that Barak Obama won Wisconsin by 213,000 votes. We were coming off two elections in which Democratic votes increased all across the state. Turnout at 3.1 million was at an all-time high. Most of the new voters voted for Obama.
This past election in Wisconsin, 3.3 million people voted, 200,000 more than on 2012. Joe Biden got 1.6 million votes, almost the same as Obama. All of the 200,000 increase in votes went to Trump bringing him to within 20,000 votes of winning.
After eight years and all the Democratic effort that went into the 2020 election (1 million volunteer conversations with voters, more than 20 million calls, 100,000 volunteer shifts, 542 staff , $37.5 million raised, reported by the state Party) we got back to our 2012 total.
The Republicans meanwhile, under Trump, added 200,000 voters.
The 2020 increase in the Republican vote was statewide. In 68 of the 72 counties, the Republican vote was the highest ever. It was lower only in Dane, Milwaukee, Waukesha and Ozaukee.
In contrast the distribution of Democratic votes changed substantially between 2012 and 2020. The Democratic vote was lower in 57 counties by a total of 82,000 votes. In the other 15 counties, the Democratic vote was up by 92,000, with two counties, Dane and Waukesha accounting for 69,000 of the total. Another four counties (St. Croix, Brown, Washington and Ozaukee) contributed an additional 17,000.
What can we learn from the two elections?
Demographics is not destiny. Identity politics creates its own backlash.
I am white, old, male and live on a farm in one of the most rural counties of the state. I have been a Democrat for 60 years, choosing the Party in my 20s for many reasons, even though my parents were conservative evangelicals and voted Republican.
Although not wavering in my support, I must admit that much of the recent rhetoric of activists has made me feel unwanted. Somehow, I am what is wrong with the Party and not particularly welcome. For sure, I am not part of any “strategy”, or included in the “future” of the Party.
I assume the reaction is stronger among those who are not politically active and have no particular ties to the Party.
Identity politics separates us into boxes, boxes with race, gender and class labels, boxes that we are born into and cannot escape, boxes that don’t take account of who we are individually, what we think, believe, or do. We are all profiled.
If identity politics has left me unhappy about feeling excluded, unhappiness has also been expressed by individuals in the included groups. Their unhappiness comes from a sense of being taken for granted.
Both, “Don’t take me for granted,” and “Don’t write me off,” are rooted in the same reaction. Don’t make assumptions about me because you have put me in a box. Some are vocal in objecting to the box itself, not thinking of themselves as “Latino” or “Asian-American” or “People of Color.”.
The pushback appeared early in this past presidential election. Polls in the summer began to show that support among Hispanics for Democratic candidates was still strong but slipping. Organizers working to register Black voters ran into questioners who wondered what good voting would accomplish since neither party had helped them very much.
Then on election day, the share of the votes cast by Blacks, Hispanics and other People of Color was lower for Joe Biden than it had been for Hillary Clinton four years earlier.
Some have suggested that what we need are smaller and more discrete boxes. It was a mistake to put all Hispanics in one box. We need multiple boxes for those whose family roots are in Venezuela, Cuba, Guatemala, or Mexico, those whose families have been citizens for generations and those who have newly emigrated.
And, we need different messages for the different boxes … “hyper-focused mini-campaigns that try to address each demographic’s stated needs.”
The inevitable problem with boxes is everyone feels left out. Others are favored. As an old white man, I have felt left out. Others see it differently. In a New York Times story this past week, Janelle Wong, a professor of American studies at the University of Maryland, suggested that “Democrats need to stop obsessing about white rural voters and white suburban moms.”
The better solution is to get rid of the boxes. Stop thinking about voters as what they are, but as who they are as individuals. Build the Democratic coalition around shared values rather than separate identities. Around a vision of what we want to create together for ourselves and the communities in which we live. Around programs and actions that make life better for all of us, regardless of what we are, or where we live: meaningful work, a living wage, health care, justice, opportunity, equality, respect, peace, and security. We focus actions where we have come up short and the need is greatest. The vision is the same for everyone.
All who want to be part of the adventure are then welcome. Sharing the same goals and sharing the fruits of our efforts, we are all the future.
Douglas Kane is the author of "Our Politics: Reflections on Political Life" published in 2019 by Southern Illinois University Press
[subscribe2]