You Need a Party to Govern
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Joe Manchin regularly lob verbal volleys at each other from opposite ends of the Democratic Party. The underlying sentiment seems to be, “More would get done if you were more like me.”
That asks the impossible. Both are products of their own personal histories and the voters who elected them. Sen. Manchin would not have won in the Bronx. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez would not win in West Virginia.
Neither, however, would have the influence they do without the other. Each provides, as do all the other Democrats who were elected, one of the necessary votes giving Democrats control of Congress. Without those last few votes, Republicans would control, Democrats would have little influence.
It is easier to join together when the goal is taking power from a common opponent. Dividing up the cookies after a win is the problem. Several months before the election, Thomas Edsell wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times suggesting the Democrats might find it easier to win than to govern. He is probably right. Although so far there has been more sniping than actual fighting.
We are a diverse party in a diverse nation. Not enough of us think alike to form a majority. We are all in a minority when it comes to what we believe. If we want to build a coalition capable of governing, we have to include both Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Manchin along with the people who voted for each.
In 2019, the Pew Research Center found that 47% of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters identify as liberal or very liberal, while 51% identify as moderate, conservative, or very conservative. An earlier Gallop poll showed that individual Democrats are not consistently liberal or conservative. Some identify themselves as liberal on social issues but conservative on economic issues, and vice versa. We are not alike.
In Congress, on the surface, we have one-party Democratic control. The reality is different. In the Senate there are 48 Democrats and two (who are very different from each other) elected as independents (Bernie Sanders and Angus King). In the House, although all ran as Democrats, they are members of different caucuses: 18 Blue Dogs, 104 New Democrats, 92 Progressives, and 5 Democratic Socialists.
When I was a member of the Illinois House of Representatives – many years ago – there were three kinds of Democrats. Loosely defined, there were the machine Democrats from Chicago, the liberals mostly from the suburbs, and the Downstate Democrats. We were all products of where we came from and how we got elected. The way we approached voting on issues, even our personalities, were different.
Elections don’t change people. The team you win with is the team you govern with. A moderate candidate who wins in a moderate district will be a moderate legislator. The election is not a conversion experience. You dance with those who brought you. You go to the dance with those you want to dance with.
Not surprisingly, the progressive members of Congress represent districts that have large majorities of Democratic voters. Of the 93 representatives who are members of the Progressive Caucus, 65 come from districts that vote more than 2 to 1 Democratic. Only seven were elected from competitive districts with less than 55 percent of the vote. Progressive districts elect progressive candidates. Progressive candidates run in progressive districts. The relationship between legislators and districts is reciprocal.
There is a dilemma. Party programs and platforms are typically crafted by the more activist and ideological members who live in strong party enclaves. To gain the majority and be able to pass the party program, however, the contested districts where the party ideology is not strong have to be won. We grow the Party by expanding out at the edges, by persuading people who agree with some of our program, to agree with more of our program, enough to win their vote.
The Party shrinks when it cuts off the edges with policies and candidates the edges are not ready to accept. We saw that result in Wisconsin when Democrats lost majorities in both the Assembly and Senate in the 2010 election.
In this past election all of the various groups and factions associated with the Party put aside their differences to win the election. Each now wants its full wish list. We are wed, but there was no prenuptial agreement.
The tension plays out, not only in Congress between more progressive and more moderate members, but also between members and their own constituents. “Perhaps nowhere is the anger hotter,” according to the New York Times, than among progressive activists in Arizona,” whose Senator, Kyrsten Sinema, won the state with 50 percent of the vote in 2018. Her recent vote against fast tracking the increase in the minimum wage to $15 and her opposition to eliminating the filibuster have drawn particular ire.
“We want her to be the best senator possible,” said Dan O’Neal, the Arizona state coordinator for Progressive Democrats of America. “But we want her to start voting like a Democrat, not a Republican.” That mindset diminishes what she brings to the Party.
If the Party wants to govern, members have to stay together and figure out on a case-by-case basis how to reach agreement. That can’t be accomplished without a commitment to getting things done; without a focus on practical actions that solve problems and deliver benefits; without a willingness to accommodate; without putting ideology in the back seat.
The Republicans have demonstrated what happens when a Party does not accommodate a diversity of ideas. When Tea Party members won office and the Freedom Caucus was formed, the Republicans lost the ability to govern. They promised health care, they promised infrastructure, they promised lots of things, but could never agree on the details. In the election last year, they didn’t even try to write a party platform.
There will always be a contest for the “soul” of the Party as various groups and interests push to elect their candidates and organize support for new ideas and programs. Primaries are the most public battleground. Who wins, who loses, can shift the Party’s center of gravity. That doesn’t expand the Party, however. One Democrat simply replaces another.
Growing a Party requires moving into spaces now occupied by, or abandoned by the other Party. Growth comes in districts that are already close, where voters are ambivalent, where the Party has to persuade. We have to recognize their hesitancy and give voters a reason to vote despite their feelings.
Voters do have the last say. They care little about intraparty fights. They discount words. What gets done is what matters. To get stuff done, you need a Party. To get stuff done, you need a Party broad enough and inclusive enough to get stuff done. A Party strong enough, creative enough, to bridge the miles between the Bronx and West Virginia. And in Wisconsin, the miles between Monroe County and Madison.
Douglas Kane is the author of "Our Politics: Reflections on Political Life" published in 2019 by Southern Illinois University Press
[subscribe2]