I do think a "Sister Souljah" moment would be great for Biden on the DEI industrial complex, in particular in schools.
If he went against the de-tracking and watering down standards in the name of "equity" that would make a lot of independent voters, in particular AAPI voters who see this "equity" work often used against them, happy.
I also think it would be good to do it with the uber woke DA's who are going light on crime for "equity" reasons.
These would be almost universally popular.
But as Biden stays quiet, it is easy for the right to associate him with Kendi/DiAngeloism.
Much of my frustration with progressivism comes from being shamed, unfriended and sneered at by college friends who think me insufficiently woke and insufficiently covid cautious. Elected Democrats are not really the problem, indeed there are many issues (crime, military spending, israel) where they are too right wing for my tastes. I wish we could pinpoint what fraction of Democrats’ poor polling is attributable to activists and social media personalities and what fraction flows from bad issue choices by politicians and consultants. I think the political professionals are doing a decent job!
I don't understand this piece. I don't think anyone is arguing that the Democratic party ought to adopt the policies of Bill Clinton.
The Sista Souljah comparison is relevant because at that time, Bill Clinton understood that it was more important to speak to what was actually popular with the black community than it was to pander to Jesse Jackson and the other activists to get their endorsement. Jackson and the other activists were out of the African American mainstream and that is the reason why Clinton's Sista Soulja moment worked, even though it still seems to piss off some activists today.
So the reason that historical example is relevant is the same - the activist base has gotten way over its skis and is outside of the Democratic mainstream, to say nothing of the national mainstream. Politicians and the political class, therefore, ought to moderate their views, tone, and policy more toward the mainstream.
This is really about adopting the "popularism" stance that you've advocated for. It just so happens that is more "conservative" than where the activist left is currently.
It's also really politics 101 - you go where the people you want to support you actually are (or at least near there), you don't lecture and alienate potential supporters by clinging to narrow and unpopular ideas and telling people who don't support them that they are stupid or bad. Which is one thing too many on the activist left are very good at doing.
The 64% approve of interracial marriage from Gallup in 1997 blows my mind. The mid 90s is when a majority of Americans finally got on board with interracial marriage (or were at least willing to say that to a pollster).
It was 48% in 1994, per gallup. The past is a foreign country.
"The No. 1 issue for women right now is the economy, and the No. 1 issue for Black voters is the economy, and the No. 1 issue for Latino voters is the economy. I’m not advocating for us ignoring social issues, but when we think broadly about voters, they actually all want us talking about the economy and doing things to help them out economically."
Everything in this piece after the first paragraph is good, but the premise of it seems to be operating off of a pretty idiosyncratic definition (or perhaps lack thereof) of "Sister Souljah." Pulling a "Sister Souljah" just means publicly criticizing the extremists in your coalition. (The real Sister Souljah, for the zoomers out there, was a rapper with some extremist views who had gotten into the news in the early days of the 1992 presidential campaign.) This is a pretty standard move in politics. Bush did it a bit in 2000. Even Trump kinda-sorta did it in his peculiar coalition-scrambling way in 2016.
Obviously what qualifies as "extremist" will vary with changes in public opinion over time. But the principle is sound and has pretty universal application. What makes Democratic versions of "Sister Souljah" a bit more fraught than Republican versions is that right-wing extremists generally understand what Republican politicians are trying to do and don't get as upset about it. Left-wing extremists tend to get more upset. But that's no reason not to publicly criticize them since (a) as Matt has written many times, they don't represent very many Americans, plus they mostly live in deep-blue districts and don't vote anyway, so you lose nothing, (b) swing voters dislike left-wing extremists regardless of faction (intersectional, socialist, anarchist) so them being angry at you is probably politically beneficial.
If Bret Stephens or anyone else out there is using "Sister Souljah" to refer more broadly to Bill Clinton's political tactics writ large, then they're using the term in a weird way. Yes, obviously Democrats should not do exactly what Bill Clinton did on everything, as the times and circumstances have changed.
While, I agree with this view and take, let me offer a counter arguments. and then a counter counter argument.
1a. the shift leftwards (less conservative) only happened because liberals pushed on these issues. By "recalibrating" do we risk sliding back to the right, or not advancing the ultimate goals of a social democracy with health care and benefits.
1c. Perhaps the left is pushing too hard, and that will result in a backlash, besides you can only make progress if you win. For example, Obama ran anti-gay marriage, and then when he had the power, then shifted his views. Winning should be primary.
On a different subject, one of the most frustrating things to talk about in politics is immigration vs borders.
I suspect most people are sort of like me. I support a complete overhaul of the immigration system that goes towards a generous point system similar to Canada, or New Zealand or Australia. It should not be overly weighed towards education levels, but should concentrate on skill levels. Let's recruit and encourage Indonesian carpenters (random example). We need a wide balance of people and countries to be represented in our immigration system. At the same time I look at the porous southern border situation and think... this is not optimal.
Instead in discourse, everything gets wrapped up in pro-immigration or anti-immigration. With no nuance.
Gas prices are one of those weird disconnect things for me. I travel for work, so my gas is usually expensed. I don't pay attention. When I am at home, I sort of notice gas prices, but the cost really isn't a big deal since I only drive errands.
However my wife drives every day to work. She is a server. Working class. To her the difference between filling up for $60 a week vs $120 a week is equivalent to half a days wages. That's a lot.
On abortion, it’s probably also relevant that as party leader, Clinton defined the pro-choice position as “safe, legal and rare,” which might explain the higher support then than now.
Matt is a moderate and "left of center"; way I describe my own positions. As such, he, I am certain finds himself accused of being a fascist at least 1/2 the time.
This would be one of those occasions
As a social progressive, living in a well left of center city, Seattle, I can't emphasize how pained, non activist progressives are with "The Squad" wing of the Democratic Party.
As an example, the guy leading the recall movement against Kshama Sawant is a older, white progressive gay man and that guy is being tarred as "Trumpist". And by the way, Ms Sawant is really indistinguishable from MTG and her ilk
The open question is if we will be more successful in beating them back than the GOP was in the hijacking of their party by the kooks
What is absolutely needed is a reset.
I was a young FOB during the Sister Soujah moment and I can tell you that lilly white conservative suburban types (although I did not quite know this at that time) in Texas were impressed by it.
Another example, that my circle of mostly moderates talk about is this activist obsession with trans right.
Transgendered people represent about 0.7% of the population and that's whose rights the Democratic Party wants to focus on? If it does not resonate with moderates in large urban areas, how does that sit with midwestern suburban types?
Seems like the democratic party is living up to it's reputation of seizing abject defeat from the jaws of victory.
As we saw in VA, a moderate GOP candidate with a fresh face and eschewing the kooks will sweep to victory. The question is if they can do it at a national level
I think we’ve moved broadly left as a country on social and especially identity issues mostly due to pop culture - starting with earnestly diverse casting in the 80s and 90s and continuing with whatever it is we all talk about happening online today. The politics is mostly downstream of that.
Economically, I think the national mood is mostly haphazard reaction to events and personal circumstances with some knee-jerk anti-incumbency sprinkled in. And voters aren’t picking on policy minutiae - we got Obamacare because of Obama’s charisma more than any coherent shift in national political convictions.
If Biden had blocked permitting and gas prices spiked, I have a hard time thinking that would have broken through because anyone capable of understanding that sentence has already committed to a side - knee-jerk partisanship being one of the things that has definitely increased since the 90s.
Am I wrong to think the actionable advice here is, once again, POPULARISM? Clinton did things that people wanted, and pushed back against things that "most people" didn't like, and that was fine. (The failed adventures in healthcare perhaps reinforcing this story by showing what happened when he moved off that formula...)
This survey data is nice in terms of putting some perspective around the cries about how SCOTUS is supposedly going to immediately move on to overturning Obergefell, Lawrence, Loving, etc. if it overturns Roe.
Matt has had a number of columns recently where the answer to me seems clear. Politicians need to update their game and simply do politics better, meaning better read where the public is, better read where the public can be pushed, and better understand when the public might usefully be persuaded to move outside a comfort zone.
Good information and insightful analysis. I think SCOTUS will blow up Roe v Wade which will have consequences in ‘22. What those consequences will be I do not know but some will be unintended for sure.
I do think a "Sister Souljah" moment would be great for Biden on the DEI industrial complex, in particular in schools.
If he went against the de-tracking and watering down standards in the name of "equity" that would make a lot of independent voters, in particular AAPI voters who see this "equity" work often used against them, happy.
I also think it would be good to do it with the uber woke DA's who are going light on crime for "equity" reasons.
These would be almost universally popular.
But as Biden stays quiet, it is easy for the right to associate him with Kendi/DiAngeloism.
Much of my frustration with progressivism comes from being shamed, unfriended and sneered at by college friends who think me insufficiently woke and insufficiently covid cautious. Elected Democrats are not really the problem, indeed there are many issues (crime, military spending, israel) where they are too right wing for my tastes. I wish we could pinpoint what fraction of Democrats’ poor polling is attributable to activists and social media personalities and what fraction flows from bad issue choices by politicians and consultants. I think the political professionals are doing a decent job!
I don't understand this piece. I don't think anyone is arguing that the Democratic party ought to adopt the policies of Bill Clinton.
The Sista Souljah comparison is relevant because at that time, Bill Clinton understood that it was more important to speak to what was actually popular with the black community than it was to pander to Jesse Jackson and the other activists to get their endorsement. Jackson and the other activists were out of the African American mainstream and that is the reason why Clinton's Sista Soulja moment worked, even though it still seems to piss off some activists today.
So the reason that historical example is relevant is the same - the activist base has gotten way over its skis and is outside of the Democratic mainstream, to say nothing of the national mainstream. Politicians and the political class, therefore, ought to moderate their views, tone, and policy more toward the mainstream.
This is really about adopting the "popularism" stance that you've advocated for. It just so happens that is more "conservative" than where the activist left is currently.
It's also really politics 101 - you go where the people you want to support you actually are (or at least near there), you don't lecture and alienate potential supporters by clinging to narrow and unpopular ideas and telling people who don't support them that they are stupid or bad. Which is one thing too many on the activist left are very good at doing.
The 64% approve of interracial marriage from Gallup in 1997 blows my mind. The mid 90s is when a majority of Americans finally got on board with interracial marriage (or were at least willing to say that to a pollster).
It was 48% in 1994, per gallup. The past is a foreign country.
From today's NYT, lessons from Virginia:
"The No. 1 issue for women right now is the economy, and the No. 1 issue for Black voters is the economy, and the No. 1 issue for Latino voters is the economy. I’m not advocating for us ignoring social issues, but when we think broadly about voters, they actually all want us talking about the economy and doing things to help them out economically."
Sounds like "It's the economy, stupid."
I'd say the lesson from Clinton is pretty simple.
Everything in this piece after the first paragraph is good, but the premise of it seems to be operating off of a pretty idiosyncratic definition (or perhaps lack thereof) of "Sister Souljah." Pulling a "Sister Souljah" just means publicly criticizing the extremists in your coalition. (The real Sister Souljah, for the zoomers out there, was a rapper with some extremist views who had gotten into the news in the early days of the 1992 presidential campaign.) This is a pretty standard move in politics. Bush did it a bit in 2000. Even Trump kinda-sorta did it in his peculiar coalition-scrambling way in 2016.
Obviously what qualifies as "extremist" will vary with changes in public opinion over time. But the principle is sound and has pretty universal application. What makes Democratic versions of "Sister Souljah" a bit more fraught than Republican versions is that right-wing extremists generally understand what Republican politicians are trying to do and don't get as upset about it. Left-wing extremists tend to get more upset. But that's no reason not to publicly criticize them since (a) as Matt has written many times, they don't represent very many Americans, plus they mostly live in deep-blue districts and don't vote anyway, so you lose nothing, (b) swing voters dislike left-wing extremists regardless of faction (intersectional, socialist, anarchist) so them being angry at you is probably politically beneficial.
If Bret Stephens or anyone else out there is using "Sister Souljah" to refer more broadly to Bill Clinton's political tactics writ large, then they're using the term in a weird way. Yes, obviously Democrats should not do exactly what Bill Clinton did on everything, as the times and circumstances have changed.
love this argument, which so nicely clarifies the landscape. but, whew, the hippie bashing in these comment threads is getting so tedious.
While, I agree with this view and take, let me offer a counter arguments. and then a counter counter argument.
1a. the shift leftwards (less conservative) only happened because liberals pushed on these issues. By "recalibrating" do we risk sliding back to the right, or not advancing the ultimate goals of a social democracy with health care and benefits.
1c. Perhaps the left is pushing too hard, and that will result in a backlash, besides you can only make progress if you win. For example, Obama ran anti-gay marriage, and then when he had the power, then shifted his views. Winning should be primary.
.....................................................................................................................................
On a different subject, one of the most frustrating things to talk about in politics is immigration vs borders.
I suspect most people are sort of like me. I support a complete overhaul of the immigration system that goes towards a generous point system similar to Canada, or New Zealand or Australia. It should not be overly weighed towards education levels, but should concentrate on skill levels. Let's recruit and encourage Indonesian carpenters (random example). We need a wide balance of people and countries to be represented in our immigration system. At the same time I look at the porous southern border situation and think... this is not optimal.
Instead in discourse, everything gets wrapped up in pro-immigration or anti-immigration. With no nuance.
...................................................................................................................................
Gas prices are one of those weird disconnect things for me. I travel for work, so my gas is usually expensed. I don't pay attention. When I am at home, I sort of notice gas prices, but the cost really isn't a big deal since I only drive errands.
However my wife drives every day to work. She is a server. Working class. To her the difference between filling up for $60 a week vs $120 a week is equivalent to half a days wages. That's a lot.
On abortion, it’s probably also relevant that as party leader, Clinton defined the pro-choice position as “safe, legal and rare,” which might explain the higher support then than now.
Matt is a moderate and "left of center"; way I describe my own positions. As such, he, I am certain finds himself accused of being a fascist at least 1/2 the time.
This would be one of those occasions
As a social progressive, living in a well left of center city, Seattle, I can't emphasize how pained, non activist progressives are with "The Squad" wing of the Democratic Party.
As an example, the guy leading the recall movement against Kshama Sawant is a older, white progressive gay man and that guy is being tarred as "Trumpist". And by the way, Ms Sawant is really indistinguishable from MTG and her ilk
The open question is if we will be more successful in beating them back than the GOP was in the hijacking of their party by the kooks
What is absolutely needed is a reset.
I was a young FOB during the Sister Soujah moment and I can tell you that lilly white conservative suburban types (although I did not quite know this at that time) in Texas were impressed by it.
Another example, that my circle of mostly moderates talk about is this activist obsession with trans right.
Transgendered people represent about 0.7% of the population and that's whose rights the Democratic Party wants to focus on? If it does not resonate with moderates in large urban areas, how does that sit with midwestern suburban types?
Seems like the democratic party is living up to it's reputation of seizing abject defeat from the jaws of victory.
As we saw in VA, a moderate GOP candidate with a fresh face and eschewing the kooks will sweep to victory. The question is if they can do it at a national level
I think we’ve moved broadly left as a country on social and especially identity issues mostly due to pop culture - starting with earnestly diverse casting in the 80s and 90s and continuing with whatever it is we all talk about happening online today. The politics is mostly downstream of that.
Economically, I think the national mood is mostly haphazard reaction to events and personal circumstances with some knee-jerk anti-incumbency sprinkled in. And voters aren’t picking on policy minutiae - we got Obamacare because of Obama’s charisma more than any coherent shift in national political convictions.
If Biden had blocked permitting and gas prices spiked, I have a hard time thinking that would have broken through because anyone capable of understanding that sentence has already committed to a side - knee-jerk partisanship being one of the things that has definitely increased since the 90s.
Am I wrong to think the actionable advice here is, once again, POPULARISM? Clinton did things that people wanted, and pushed back against things that "most people" didn't like, and that was fine. (The failed adventures in healthcare perhaps reinforcing this story by showing what happened when he moved off that formula...)
This survey data is nice in terms of putting some perspective around the cries about how SCOTUS is supposedly going to immediately move on to overturning Obergefell, Lawrence, Loving, etc. if it overturns Roe.
Matt has had a number of columns recently where the answer to me seems clear. Politicians need to update their game and simply do politics better, meaning better read where the public is, better read where the public can be pushed, and better understand when the public might usefully be persuaded to move outside a comfort zone.
Good information and insightful analysis. I think SCOTUS will blow up Roe v Wade which will have consequences in ‘22. What those consequences will be I do not know but some will be unintended for sure.
One thing Clinton does not get enough credit for is increasing taxes and the EITC increases and decreasing the structural deficit.