See the World as it Is, With All the Contradictions
Communication theory tells us that we accept messages that fit with our already held beliefs and reject those that don’t. The theory takes life in the various explanations why Democrats lost seats in Congress when we expected to add members. Depending on where one places oneself within the Party’s ideological continuum, candidates lost because they weren’t bold enough, or they lost because some in the Party are too bold.
Some understanding of the reasons underlying the results is essential to constructing a successful strategy for winning enough seats in Congress and state legislatures in future elections to effectively govern. Who are the voters we have to convince? Where do they live? What matters to them?
Those are matters of serious debate, touching on what we believe as a Party, the vision we have of what our nation should be, and how best to move forward in achieving that vision.
For that debate to be constructive, however, each of us has to be open to incorporating facts that contradict the facts we like. The willingness to see the world in all its complexities is the first step if we want our endeavors to succeed.
Ten days after the election Our Wisconsin Revolution sent out an email with the following message.
“There's this false narrative out there that when Democrats offer bold approaches to big problems—like Medicare for All to cure what ails our sick health care system—they alienate voters and lose. The opposite is true.
“In this year's elections, 112 members of Congress who were sponsors of the Medicare for All legislation stood for reelection. Do you know how many of them lost? Zero.
“It was the corporate-funded congressional Democrats like former University of Wisconsin-Madison chancellor Donna Shalala who lost.
“It's not just overhauling our nation's sick health care system that voters want. They want bold climate action. A total of 98 sponsors of the Green New Deal legislation in Congress were on the ballot all across the country. All but one was reelected.”
That is pretty straightforward. All factual.
On the basis of those facts, Our Wisconsin Revolution concludes: “Voters in swing states and even in red Republican states showed their support for progressive ideas. … Goes to show that standing up for progressive policies and acting boldly on the biggest problems facing our country not only is the right thing to do, it's good politics and a winning strategy.”
There are additional facts, however, also true, which provide some context.
A total of 136 Democratic House members sponsored one or both proposals – Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. In Wisconsin, Mark Pocan from Madison sponsored both; Gwen Moore from Milwaukee sponsored the Green New Deal. Both represent districts that are more than 70 percent Democratic – even though the state is a swing state.
The pattern repeats in the rest of the country. Of the 136 sponsors, 105 come from 60 percent plus Democratic districts. Only 14 represent districts that are less than 55 percent Democratic -- districts that might be defined as swing. In 12 of those districts, the Democratic incumbents lost votes in 2020 compared to 2018 – by an average of 4 percentage points. Only two of the sponsors running in swing districts gained votes in 2020 compared to 2018.
When these additional facts are brought into the mix it is not so clear that Medicare for All is a winning strategy in swing districts. There may be better approaches. And more facts to bring into the discussion.
Is there a lesson we can learn from Donna Shalala’s loss? Our Wisconsin Revolution points to her as an example of Democrats who lose because they are not progressive enough. Shalala represented Florida’s 27th District. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, one of the sponsors of the Green New Deal represented Florida’s 26th District. Both districts are part of Miami-Dade County in South Florida. The 27th is 63 percent Hispanic, the 26th is 72 percent Hispanic. They are similar in many respects.
Both Shalala and Mucarsel-Powell were elected for the first time in 2018, defeating Republican incumbents; Shalala with 51.8 percent of the vote, Mucarsel-Powell with 50.9 percent. Both lost in 2020; Shalala with 48.6 percent of the vote and Mucarsel-Powell with 48.3 percent. Policy differences and voting records of the two Democrats didn’t make a difference, one way or the other, in the results.
The fact that Trump in this election made large gains among Hispanic voters, contributing to his getting 200,000 more votes in Miami-Dade compared to 2016, is more relevant. The reasons driving that vote change are what we need to determine.
When looking at this election to see what can be done better in the next, question assumptions, look for alternate facts, be open to new strategies. And remember, voters are multidimensional individuals not readily described by one characteristic or reduced to one motive. The cure for any problem depends on getting the diagnosis right.
Good policy and good politics reinforce each other. We can find ways to achieve both. We need humility, however, to accept that our belief in what is good policy is not exclusive; there may be other versions that are also good. In addition, we must see the political landscape clearly, if whatever strategy we adopt is going to be effective.
Douglas Kane is the author of "Our Politics: Reflections on Political Life" published in 2019 by Southern Illinois University Press
[subscribe2]