ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Democrats Already Have A Good Economic Populist Agenda

[ Posted Thursday, November 14th, 2024 – 17:07 UTC ]

I have to say, the temptation to join the chorus of both laughter and horror over Donald Trump's cabinet picks is pretty tempting today, but I think I'll save my comments on that clown parade for tomorrow. Instead, I'm going to continue looking forward today, to extend my thoughts on the Democratic Party and what it should do moving forward. The last two days I devoted to possible presidential candidates in 2028, but today I'm going to concentrate on what Democrats should be emphasizing during both the 2026 (midterm) and 2028 campaigns.

Looking that far into the future in politics is impossible, I do realize that. A lot of any Democratic campaign is going to be commentary on what Trump has done as president, that much seems pretty certain. What I'm going to lay out is a very pro-family economic platform for Democrats to embrace next time around, which would compliment whatever Democrats are saying about Trump and the Republicans running Washington.

This isn't meant to be an autopsy of what went wrong in the 2028 campaign, but one common theme has emerged from such attempts I've read elsewhere. Democrats continue to lose working-class blue-collar workers -- of all identity groups. Blacks, Latinos, Whites -- it doesn't matter which, they all deeply care about the economy. If there is one easy way to explain the way the electorate was feeling this cycle, it is the anger that eggs got expensive (I've even heard the neologism "egg-flation" used to describe it), and Democrats didn't seem to care much or have an answer for it.

This is a vast oversimplification, of course. It wasn't just eggs, it was also milk, gasoline, rent, mortgages, car loans -- a whole lot of things that suddenly were making life unaffordable for millions. Those living paycheck-to-paycheck feel the brunt of what a bag of groceries costs more than anyone else, and Kamala Harris wasn't all that believable when she swore she was going to take on the big grocery companies to force prices down.

Taking a wider view, Democrats stand accused of not paying attention to working-class issues, at the expense of being "woke" and identity politics. These are really apples and oranges, but the accusation that Democrats simply don't do a very good job of talking about the economy is certainly valid. Other than Bernie Sanders and the economic-populist wing, the rest of the party doesn't do a great job championing populism -- and an absolutely horrible job of taking credit for anything. Those are deep problems within the party, but I'm only going to mention them in passing here (that's a subject for another day, maybe).

What's most annoying (to me, at least) is the undeniable fact that Democrats are unquestionably the party that even dares to proposed things to make working-class families' lives better. Republicans always oppose such efforts, and have no real answers of their own (unless you want to count: "Let's give your corporation and your boss another big tax break!"). Meanwhile, Democrats fight to get a raise in the minimum wage and paid family leave and nobody gives them credit for it.

As I said, that's a problem for another day. I'm going to assume for the sake of argument here today that the Democratic Party does wake up and realize that economic populism is actually quite popular and people do want to hear about it, and thus it can easily become a winning campaign message for them. The question then becomes: What policies should they all get behind?

First of all, it should be a short list. Kamala Harris tried to vaguely promise a whole bunch of things on the economy, but at the expense of any sort of concentrated focus on any of them. She called it an "Opportunity Economy," but can anyone who followed the campaign this year remember three things that were included? That is a failure of messaging. And when you take a look at her campaign website's "Issues" page and start to dive down into it, it gets rather aspirational (as opposed to getting more concrete about specifics).

Democrats have to learn some message discipline, which means being able to rattle off two good ideas for any subject -- and then stopping. Over and over and over again. The same two ideas. And obviously, picking the most popular ones is the way to go.

Fortunately, for Democrats, a short list of very concrete new policy ideas already exists. They don't have to reinvent the wheel here. They just have to go back to what Joe Manchin singlehandedly killed (well, with help from his sidekick Kyrsten Sinema, to give ignominy where it is due). The "Build Back Better" plan that Joe Biden managed to get through the House would have, if it had passed the Senate, changed the dynamics of the presidential race. It would have given Harris (or Biden, or anyone else who had been the nominee) something very solid to point to, telling American families: "See? You like that, right? We did that for you. Democrats."

But because the bill was gutted (mostly by removing all the economic-populist agenda items), a bunch of good ideas didn't pass.

But they're still all good ideas. In fact, they are sitting there on the shelf just waiting for Democrats to pick them back up and run with them.

So here is the list, for everyone who has forgotten it, of dandy pro-family campaign issues for Democrats to get behind. All of these would make life better for American families in very real, very profound, very immediate ways. Hammering home the message "Democrats want to do this for you!" can work wonders. Here is the basic list -- all the things Joe Manchin personally stripped out of the bill that eventually did make it to Biden's desk:

  • No family will ever pay more than seven percent of their income on childcare. Period.
  • Free pre-kindergarten for all American families.
  • Free community college for all.
  • Paid family and medical leave for all.
  • Increase Obamacare insurance subsidies to make buying health insurance cheaper.
  • Expanded in-home senior (and disability) care under Medicare and Medicaid.
  • An expanded Child Tax Credit that gets mailed to parents as a check every month.

That last one actually happened, for one single year (which is all Manchin would agree to). But did any Democrat get out there and hammer it home on every television appearance? "Parents are now getting monthly checks as their Child Tax Credit, and it has reduced childhood poverty by half! That is what America is capable of under Democratic leadership!" Because Manchin hated it (he thought poor parents would spend the money on drugs), it was not continued after the first year, and child poverty rates shot back up.

Consider that whole list, though, from the point of view of a family trying to make ends meet. A cap on what they have to pay for childcare? That would been a huge benefit to millions of family budgets, right there. Knowing your own parents wouldn't go bankrupt paying for in-home care? That also would have been a huge relief. Free preschool and free community college? That would ease big worries on the costs of education at both ends of childhood. These programs all directly affect working-class families, in very concrete and measurable ways. They are all "kitchen-table" issues. And they were all proposed by Democrats and fought by Republicans. The only item on that list that Republicans have ever even partially supported was expanding the Child Tax Credit, and this support has been sporadic and only offered by a handful of Republicans. Democrats, meanwhile, were all behind it -- with the exception of two in the Senate who killed the whole agenda. But both of them are gone now.

There are plenty of other good ideas out there. Raising the minimum wage, for instance. But Democrats have got to learn to keep it short and sweet, and make concrete promises. Harris didn't. Her "Issues" webpage has gauzy language such as: "Vice President Harris will fight to ensure parents can afford high-quality child care and preschool for their children." Um, OK... but what does that really mean for my family? Vague promises aren't the way to go, to be blunt. "You will not have to pay more than seven percent of your income on childcare -- plus, free pre-K, for three- and four-year-olds!" is so much better. And to the inevitable media complaints about the cost of such programs, there's also an easy answer: "We're going to pay for all of this by making sure billionaires and giant corporations finally pay their fair share in taxes!"

The complaint that Democrats are losing blue-collar voters to the Republicans is not a new one. It goes back to the so-called "Reagan Democrats." Ever since the 1980s, more and more working-class people have migrated to becoming solid Republican voters. The notion that "Democrats don't know how to talk to working-class voters" began a very long time ago. Every so often they manage to overcome this, but it's not like it's a brand-new thing in the age of Trump. Bernie Sanders has done what he could to yank the party back to its origins as the party of the working man, but the party has to follow through on some concrete promises to be really convincing.

And then -- the crucial part -- they have to remind people what they did, incessantly. And not go off into the weeds, but instead focus on a handful of bullet points -- in every interview, no matter what the question was. "Well, it's true the price of eggs has gone up, but we think the problem of affordable childcare is a much bigger problem -- make it so parents can afford quality childcare, and life will get a lot better for tens of millions of Americans right away."

This stuff ain't rocket science. It's actually pretty easy to understand. There are many things that pressure American families' budgets. There are many ideas out there for how to improve them (on all sorts of other issues -- the cost of housing, for instance). There are popular ideas that have nothing to do with economics, too (legalize marijuana at the federal level, for one). Putting together a populist agenda isn't all that tough to do, really. But to be effective, it's got to have a clear focus, it's got to have concrete goals, and it's got to involve issues which working families (Black, Latino, and White) all worry about around their kitchen tables. So enough with the vagueness! Enough with the lack of focus! Democrats need to buckle down and rededicate themselves to real solutions and then get out there are actually fight for them, instead of perpetually getting dragged down in details or (even worse) culture-war issues.

That's the way Democrats can start winning again, plain and simple.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

30 Comments on “Democrats Already Have A Good Economic Populist Agenda”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Other than Bernie Sanders and the economic-populist wing, the rest of the party doesn't do a great job championing populism -- and an absolutely horrible job of taking credit for anything.

    Senator Sherrod Brown also knew how to talk about the economy and the significant differences between Democratic and Republican economic policy. And, ironically, he didn't get re-elected.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Messaging on the economy AND laying out the basic differences between Democratic and Republican economic policy doesn't have to get stalled in the weeds or dragged down in the details and culture issues.

    But, you shouldn't treat voters like they are stupid, either, because they are not.

  3. [3] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    Wait, maybe the voters actually are stupid. Why do you say that's like a bad thing? The whole point of democracy (demos = the common crowd; cracy = rule) is that the consent of the governed, the stupid crowd, is the strongest basis for a stable state. Stupid or not, they are the people being governed and their uninformed opinions and prejudices must be accounted for in a just allocation of political power.

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well I can see that most everybody here is feasting on sour grapes.

    Democrats lost it over it.

  5. [5] 
    Kick wrote:

    Looking that far into the future in politics is impossible, I do realize that.

    I would not say something is "impossible" if I'd written blog posts three days in a row doing it. Not a complaint but an observation. :)

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isXCmG5pLQY

    And ta think there were actually people who actually BELIEVED that Harris could actually WIN this election!!!! :D

    There is simply no logical or rational case to be made that Harris EVER had ANY possible chance to win the 2024 election...

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well how about this... A Democrat who can rise above his PTDS and Trump/America hate and actually care about this country!!??

    Democrat governor breaks with party in commending Trump for tapping RFK Jr to join Cabinet

    Democratic Colorado governor commends Trump for nominating RFK Jr. as HHS secretary

    Gov. Jared Polis said he looks forward to 'partnering with him to truly make America healthy again.'

    Ya'all need to get off yer Trump/America hate PTDS kick and start helping President ELECT Trump to make America great again.

    Don't ya'all WANT to help yer country??

  8. [8] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    But, you shouldn't treat voters like they are stupid, either, because they are not.

    that's just false. individual voters are not stupid. however, voters as a group collectively are ABSOLUTELY stupid.

    'Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    ---George Carlin

    i.e.
    it's just a statistical fact.

    JL

  9. [9] 
    dsws wrote:

    The fillibuster is garbage. There's no reason to think that a flat 60-vote threshold to pass anything will lead to good legislation. What we need is actual checks and balances, where people with different outlooks have to consider the merits of each other's ideas, and sort out what's actually good policy -- or, failing that, have to work out reasonable compromises. Everyone in Congress is elected by the same winner-take-all plurality voting system. Different levels of obstructionism aren't the kind of difference that can enable that. The founders imagined that the elites who controlled the state legislatures would have enough in common, compared to the hoi palloi who formed the constituency of the House, that the Senate would be able to come to one consensus while the House came to another, and then they could negotiate in conference committee. But it doesn't work that way. We need institutions that reflect the actual flow of influence, and have actual deliberation happen where it's theoretically supposed to.

  10. [10] 
    dsws wrote:

    That doesn't mean replace it with nothing.

  11. [11] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    MANY very smart people fall into what's called similarity bias. because something is easy for them to grasp, they presume it will be easy for others too if only they explain it right or come at it from the right angle, and that's often just not the case.

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh. So, what should it be replaced with?

  13. [13] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @dan,

    perhaps, but what about michale's point that republicans after abolishing the filibuster might then establish permanent one-party rule and restrict democratic elections? i don't think it would really go that way, but can we discount the possibility?

    JL

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    To be clear, my [12] was meant for Dan. Of course, smart people would have known that. ;)

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    What's most annoying (to me, at least) is the undeniable fact that Democrats are unquestionably the party that even dares to proposed things to make working-class families' lives better.

    I know what you mean. Ahem.

    Maybe it's time, at long last, for Dems to start thinking about how to counter the success of the Republican cult of economic failure in leading voters of ALL stripes astray. Hint: it ain't rocket science!

  16. [16] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    The problem with permanently fixing elections to a single party is only a quarter of those eligible to vote voted for Trump. Of those, only a fraction would support extreme action. It's a big question what the non-voters would do if you upend their lives. And elections are state and local affairs. Blue states are not going to go along. With our massive debt and huge budget, I would think a well timed general strike would bring the federal government to it's knees. If fixed elections worked, everyone could just register Republican and change from within. The rule book is complex even if not always followed...

    My personal stand is once the government is no longer a constitutional republic run by the rule of law with free and fair elections, my social contact with said government ends.

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    One final point, if I may, in the immediate aftermath of the 2024 presidential election ...

    If Dems don't learn the right lessons about their election defeat in this presidential election cycle and they keep doing things the way they have been, year after year after decade after decade and they keep talking non-stop about Trump over the next four years to the virtual exclusion of the really existential issues for people, then they will have gone a long way toward increasing the downward spiral of the country as opposed to working to swing the pendulum in a better direction.

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    that's just false. individual voters are not stupid. however, voters as a group collectively are ABSOLUTELY stupid.

    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet."
    -Agent K, MEN IN BLACK

    :D

    it's just a statistical fact.

    "There are lies. Then there are damn lies. And THEN there are statistics."
    -Samuel Clemmons

    Yunno, we go thru this every time Democrats get creamed and it's all so pointless..

    It's not ya'all's MESSAGING that is the problem.. Ya'all plaster yer "messages" out to the general voting just fine..

    The problem is, the problem that ya'all REFUSE to accept as factual is that AMERICANS DON'T LIKE YOUR MESSAGE..

    Democrats are getting their message out just fine..

    AMERICANS simply don't LIKE the Democrat's message.. AMERICANS simply don't WANT the Democrats' message..

    Until ya'all learn that one simple, yet crucial fact, ya'all will continue to lose elections..

    Put another way...

    I was on record for the last few months saying that Democrats SIMPLY CAN'T WIN in 2024. I said it when Biden was the candidate and I said it when Harris was the candidate.

    If I HAD been wrong... If Harris had beat President Trump with such a HUGE Margin in both the Electoral Vote and in the POPULAR VOTE...

    If THAT had happened?? I would be seriously looking in the mirror right now and saying to myself, "Self?? Yunno.. Maybe *I* am wrong.. Maybe it's MY politics that are the problem.."

    You and your Democrats are simply INCAPABLE of doing that sort of deep self-reflection..

    And THAT is why America is a Center Right (or maybe closer to Right Center) country..

    Until such time as you and the Democrats can accomplish that sort of deep self-reflection. Ya'all will continue to lose...

    But to self-reflect to the level needed, ya'all will have to overcome your PTDS and your Trump/America hate..

    And THAT will likely never happen in my lifetime..

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    perhaps, but what about michale's point that republicans after abolishing the filibuster might then establish permanent one-party rule and restrict democratic elections? i don't think it would really go that way, but can we discount the possibility?

    It could very easily go that way..

    Suppose Democrats HAD been able to get rid of the Filibuster when they controlled the White House, the Senate and the House.

    They could have rammed thru amnesty for illegals and viola'..

    20 Million fresh "Americans" who don't understand anything beyond Democrats are giving them free money and will always vote to keep their Sugar Uncle in power..

    A HUGE voting block that will continue to grow as Democrats open the borders even wider for a constant supply of fresh slaves for the Democrat plantation.

    And THAT is why Democrats are so desperate to get rid of the filibuster...

    You honestly don't see how that could happen??

    Why not??

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    If Dems don't learn the right lessons about their election defeat in this presidential election cycle and they keep doing things the way they have been, year after
    year after decade after decade and they keep talking non-stop about Trump over the next four years to the virtual exclusion of the really existential issues for people, then they will have gone a long way toward increasing the downward spiral of the country as opposed to working to swing the pendulum in a better direction.

    Exactly..

    It goes to what I said in #18 above..

    If Democrats refuse to look in the mirror and consider the very real possibility that they are wrong, they will continue to lose elections.

    Oh sure.. They might chalk up a win or two in a battle here and there.. But they will eventually lose the war..

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    My personal stand is once the government is no longer a constitutional republic run by the rule of law with free and fair elections, my social contact with said government ends.

    According to you and your Democrats, that had already happened.

    According to you and your Democrats we now have a fascist Hitler taking office in Jan of 2025..

    So, yer social contract is gone..

    What ya gonna do about it??

    "... so what I am going to do is piss and moan like an impotent jerk, and then bend over and take it up the tailpipe!
    -Jim Carrey, LIAR LIAR

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of that.. I am going to bring a question I asked in the previous commentary forward because I REALLY want an answer...

    So can I get a definitive YES/NO answer now??

    IS President ELECT Trump the second coming of Hitler??

    IS President ELECT Trump a fascist?

    IS President ELECT Trump going to destroy democracy and cancel elections??

    Yes?? Or No???

  23. [23] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    According to you and your Democrats, that had already happened.

    I am not a registered democrat and as much as you spew this bs you have not backed it up. Who said it? I have not...

    As to [22] I already answered those questions. If you don't remember the answer, then, oh well...

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    As to [22] I already answered those questions. If you don't remember the answer, then, oh well...

    Ahh yes, your old standby lie..

    Claim to have already answered which allows you to not answer..

    Coward..

  25. [25] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    "Dollar store Mussolini" ring a bell as well as a couple of posts directly addressing fascism/authoritarianism...

    Wow, you can lie and call people names. Talk about American hating and unpatriotic behavior...

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wow, you can lie and call people names. Talk about American hating and unpatriotic behavior...

    You mean like you just engaged in name-calling with President ELLECT Trump??

    You mean like that???

    :eyeroll:

    For the record, you DIDN'T answer my question.. So you lied when you claimed you did..

    What part of YES/NO answer ONLY did you not understand??

  27. [27] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    You mean like that???

    First, Trump is a special case as he has pet insults for everyone so I think tossing them back at him is fair game. Second my Trump name calling is rare and orders of magnitude less than your dumb slurs.

    I answered your question just not in the way you want. It was also before your current yes/no format. Still better then you avoiding questions. Like when are you going to explain how great Trump's tariffs will be?

  28. [28] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    If the exit polls are correct and "it's the economy, stupid", I think the democrats should be quite bullish on the midterms. Tariffs are just dumb. Republicans taxing the crap out of businesses. Interesting change of strategy. If the countries don't immediately buckle under, they will likely impose tariffs right back making our place as second largest exporter in the world quite shaky. Hard to grow manufacturing when you make exports more expensive thus reducing customers. 30% of our food is imported. Some are crops that don't grow in winter in the US. Some of it we can't grow here at all. Hawaii will not support America's caffeine habit as one example. Cocoa beans and tea being other major crops we are just not in the right latitude to grow. Add to that, massive uptick in unemployment due to cutting the federal government by 75%. The federal government is this countries largest employer. 2.7 million people. Just how many does Musk and Ramaswamy plan to fire? 75% would be over 2 million. Then who is going to pick the crops and do a lot of construction? Those government employees with mortgages and car payments certainly aren't. Then are the Hispanics going to vote republican again after the military comes into their communities hauling people off to put in camps? Bad optics there. Are the muslim supporters going to vote republican after Trump gives Israel a free hand to kick the Palestinians out of Gaza?

    Even if Trumps ideas had a chance of working, they would not in the 21 months that he needs them too. I've helped bring up manufacturing lines. It takes a long time and that's in buildings already set up for it. If the building has to be built or completely retrofitted, not a chance in hell...

  29. [29] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller

    All due respect, you clearly do NOT understand Americans.

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    All due respect, Americans don't understand Americans. ;)

Comments for this article are closed.