Predictably, the Democratic Establishment (Including the NYT) is Having None of It
Having indulged in a bit of non-pessimism in yesterday's column, I want to get back to reality today with a serious question.
Pop quiz: What do Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries stand for?
Seriously, I wonder how many people reading this column -- or even how many people in the entire world -- could answer that question with any confidence at all. Could anyone? These are two of the most prominent people in the US government, men who have made it clear that they will try to retain their top leadership positions in the newly Democratic Party-controlled houses of Congress, but other than being "against Trump" or "for Democrats," has anyone ever heard them say what are they actually in government to accomplish?
Beyond the occasional generalities and platitudes ("improving people's lives," "a peaceful world," "restoring decency to the government"), I can honestly say that I never-have-I-ever heard either man even hint at would amount to something resembling a governing vision, or as much as a fraction of one. Donald Trump once said that he has "concepts of a plan" to fix the health care system. Does the power couple henceforth to be known as Schuffries have even that?
Certainly, plenty of people have a very clear, cynical, accurate idea of what both men truly stand for at the end of the day. I know I do. What Schuffries would describe as "centrism" or "moderation" or "realism" always boils down to telling people not to get their hopes up, not to expect Democratic leaders to lead, not to do anything except what the party's establishment and donors want.
As I wrote in Part 2 of a two-part column over the summer, the heirs to Bill Clinton's disastrous triangulation strategy are still in charge of the Democratic Party, and their view of the world was summed up with devastating accuracy in Henry Burke's column in The American Prospect, "Centrists: Better Things Aren’t Possible: Third Way’s strategy session for Democratic moderates lacked any vision other than a hatred for progressives." Burke described how the self-labeled centrists are in fact in the business of pushing the Democratic Party to the right, not the center, and they have been at it for decades.
I could go on for days about this, but instead I invite readers who want a deeper dive into the cabal that backs Schuffries to look at that two-part column, which I pointedly titled: "Now We'll See Whether the Democratic Establishment Truly Cares About Democracy." I chose that title because I wrote the column immediately after Abdul El-Sayed won his primary against the Democratic establishment's hand-picked candidate for the open Michigan Senate seat, and I honestly wondered whether those guys could ever allow themselves to support now-Senator-Elect El-Sayed.
The answer turned out to be: tepidly, at best, until it became clear that he would win. But sometimes, not even that. Even six days ago, New Jersey's long-serving Democratic Senator Cory Booker -- who flies under the radar as an establishment hatchet man, but that is what he is -- went on TV and refused to endorse El-Sayed. So the leadership of the opposition party, the same leadership that was piously telling everyone that Republicans needed to be pushed out of power to save our democracy from ruin, thought it more important to all but shun a popular, charismatic outsider who does not support their cramped agenda, even if his loss had stopped the party from retaking the Senate. Who truly cares about democracy, again?
Before going on with my return to pessimism, I should take a moment to note one very positive implication of the election results that I failed to mention yesterday: John Fetterman will continue to be irrelevant. That is, the nominal Democrat from Pennsylvania, who has shocked his former fans by becoming a loose, Republican-friendly cannon (and who is not even interested in doing his job), could have become the new obstructionist if the Democrats had not been so successful in piling up Senate wins.
That is, it would have been easy to imagine a 51-49 Democratic majority held hostage by Fetterman's whims, and even though he has denied that he plans to switch parties, the very threat of his doing so would have been enough to make the reign of error by Krysten Sinema and Joe Manchin in the first two years of Joe Biden's presidency look sane. Or, as the largest newspaper in Fetterman's own state put it: "Democrats ‘Fetterman proofed’ the Senate with wins in longtime red states, Pa. senator's critics say."
So that is a bit of extra good news that I did not include in yesterday's column. I would have been very concerned if Fetterman had not been neutered. (Yes, that is a gratuitous Susan Collins reference.)
But back to the threat to the country posed by the establishment of Fetterman's party, an establishment that receives the benefit of support from a large number of powerful people. Going back to the pop quiz at the beginning of this column -- What do Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries stand for? -- here is one of the more cynical, accurate answers that I can offer: The New York Times knows perfectly well what Schuffries truly stand for, and that newspaper definitely is in the tank for both of them.
Why do I say that? The Times has shown again and again that they are fully behind the do-nothing, take no risks, you-kids-get-off-my-lawn approach to dealing with liberals and progressives. In yesterday's edition, they ran an article that was presented as news but was in fact unbridled editorializing/wish fulfillment: "Moderate Democrats Increase Their Numbers, and Their Clout," with the sub-headline: "Victories by moderates in competitive or Republican-leaning states and districts paved the way for large new Democratic majorities likely to be shaped by their priorities."
The article began by predicting that Schumer and Jeffries will be leaders of their caucuses ("would-be," "presumptive,"), as if that were a done deal rather than very much an argument to be had. But the key point is that The Times continues to peddle the Schuffries crowd's fundamental lie, which is that progressives are impractical, weird, and will alienate Real Americans (tm). For example, we find this toward the top of the piece:[T]he path to Democrats’ sweeping victory this week, when they seized control of both chambers of Congress, was paved overwhelmingly by moderates who had spent months persuading voters in Republican-leaning states and competitive congressional districts that they could be trusted to govern and would deliver dissatisfied voters a practical alternative to President Trump.You see, those others -- the dastardly non-moderates -- cannot be trusted to govern. The so-called moderates are the adults in the room, because "[t]hey promised to lower costs, improve health care and restore trust in government, not necessarily to deliver the sweeping transformations championed by the party’s ascendant liberals." Plus, "the arrival of more moderate Democrats could strengthen [Jeffries's] hand in setting an agenda focused on economic relief and achievable legislative victories." The article quotes one of those self-styled centrists saying how important she is, and then it adds this bit of obvious editorializing:
Many of their newly elected members have already made clear that they expect Democrats to pursue achievable results rather than sweeping ideological ambitions. And given the scope of Democrats’ majority in the House, the relatively smaller bloc of left-wing members may be limited in its ability to insist that its priorities be met.
Oh brother. Has The Times (and I am ascribing this to the newspaper's leadership, not merely the two dutiful reporters whose names appear on the byline) not noticed that it is progressives who want "achievable results" and are trying to "deliver dissatisfied voters a practical alternative to President Trump"? There is even a funny nickname for practical-minded leaders from the Democratic Socialists of America -- Sewer Socialists -- which is playfully literal, describing politicians who want to fix things like roads, sewers, schools, and so on. Has The Times never heard of that? Oh wait, it has, but that is evidently so five months ago.
Arguably, the most famous of those progressives is New York's Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who has built his mayoralty around delivering practical results. His unexpectedly engaging social media videos even show him personally filling potholes. Yes, those are PR events, but the point is that Mayor Mamdani's PR is built upon the most basic of achievable results, not "sweeping transformations championed by the party’s ascendant liberals," whatever those transformations are thought to be.
Indeed, Mayor Mamdani posted a very short (one minute, 20 seconds) video yesterday that spoke directly to this issue of immediacy and practicality, pointedly titled "It's Morning Again in America." Here is a full transcript:
Last night's election proved working people expect more from their government, and they're tired of waiting. J.D. Vance asked for a couple more years to finally fulfill the promises he'd made to our country. Working people can't afford another two years to make rent that's due this month, child care for their kids, or groceries for their family.
People are tired of being told that there isn't enough to go around while Elon Musk becomes the world's first trillionaire. They are tired of being told to sacrifice their land and water for data centers. They're tired of being told their needs are unrealistic by politicians who've been bought by the wealthiest people on the planet. They're tired of being told to ask for little and expect even less.
And last night, the people stood up. They stood up to politicians that spend their taxpayer dollars on war crimes and genocide instead of on building schools and paving roads. They spoke louder than the hundreds of millions of dollars that tried and failed to buy this election. They demanded an end to the affordability crisis that has become one of the few things that unites us all.
It is not enough to simply win power. We must use it. And the American people will know the difference between hollow words and hard work. For years we've had the debate. Now, it's time for us in the Democratic Party to deliver. My friends, it's morning again in America.
Does that sound like someone who is ignoring practical issues in favor of some unspecified (but apparently utopian, or perhaps even sinister) "sweeping ideological ambitions"? Whatever one might think about Mamdani's particular policy choices, this is not a man who has been tilting at windmills.
More importantly, the Schuffries crowd will continue to do exactly what Mamdani said they do: tell their own voters "to ask for little and expect less." And they will, as always, cloak it in terms of being realistic.
For example, Paul Krugman suggested this morning that Democrats "should offer legislation immediately restoring the Affordable Care Act subsidies that Trump and his allies killed, leading to soaring premiums for health insurance and plunging enrollment." And what will the so-called moderates and centrists in the party say? Oh no, that is too expensive. Think of the deficit! How about paying for it by repealing some of the Republicans' regressive tax cuts? Good lord, do you want people to think we're in favor of increasing taxes? I would bet on this, because that litany of excuses is their playbook.
Perry Bacon, a former Washington Post columnist, has a new piece in The New Republic: "Liberals Must Fight The New York Times’ Monopoly Too: The paper’s editorial vision is out of step with the robust liberalism needed today." He is not wrong.
In short, having enjoyed a few moments of afterglow yesterday, reading that NYT article brought me back to reality today. Unfortunately, there is a built-in PR machine pushing this depressing "We don't dare to be seen as too daring" message from the Schuffries establishment. If yesterday was a day for non-pessimism, today is the day to remember that the people who actually lead the Democratic Party have no vision, no goals, no reason for being. They simply serve the rich donors who want us all to believe that better things truly are not possible. And The Times will always be right there with them, presenting their empty message as news.
- Neil H. Buchanan