On Ideological Identity and Progressive Reform
Democrats have an identity problem. The last several years have seen an increase in Democratic candidates and politicians at both state and federal levels label themselves ‘social democrats,’ ‘democrats socialists,’ or even just ‘socialists.’ There is nothing wrong with using terminology to help voters understand where you lie on a whole host of issues. Political labeling can be one of the best ways to gain recognition and win elected office. If you take the thesis that all politics is team sport, then it follows to use labeling to help others know what team you play for. But this identity selection can also hinder your opportunities, particularly in deeply polarized systems.
The political culture of the United States is fairly conservative when viewed comparatively with other like nations of the global West. In certain respects, this was by design. Our system is built with a conservative advantage. I’m not speaking of the way in which today’s conservative identity political actors have an advantage, that’s a mostly separate development. Rather, I’m speaking of our founding approach to democracy. The American constitution was written in a way that created a multitude of veto points in the legislative process. This design was intended to make change more difficult; a policy must build a substantial political backing in order to become law. Not many other countries block political majorities in the ways we do in the United States. But that’s not the only way in which America has a politically conservative culture.
The decades-long fight against ‘communism’ during and prior to the Cold War have shaped public perception about anything associated with a real leftwing bent. Add to that the culmination of the Cold War with the Reagan presidency and his neoliberal revolution, America is dubious of government and what it is capable of in positively affecting everyday life. Although, there is reason to believe that while many Americans feel aversion to communism and socialism, they actually would support broadly socialistic policies. Medicare and Social Security are two of the most cherished public programs in America, even among identity conservatives. Both are government run and administered; if labeled simplistically: socialism.
Americans also poll positively on universal healthcare programs. There’s little reason to believe that Americans could be convinced to support popular progressive policy, if they didn’t have negative associations about them. In this way, I think Democrats need to distance themselves from labeling themselves or their policies as socialism or democratic socialism, even if definitionally they are. What I’m suggesting is a bit of an illusionary trick. I’m not confident it would work in our current media environment. But I think it may be our best opportunity to actually enact progressive change. As we’ve seen with the 2020 campaign, even moderates like Joe Biden are being tarred as bringers of some evil communist revolution. This is through no fault of his own, he’s done his best to distance himself from those young lawmakers who have enthusiastically embraced the title of socialism or democratic socialism. As long as Fox News and the conservative mediasphere continues to operate as the chief narrative maker for conservative audiences it will be hard to remove that stigma.
The hope of a non-identity priming progressive agenda will probably be through individual persuasive political actors. In this way, I find Pete Buttigieg’s recent visits to Fox News to be interesting. I’ve no data to show that he’s being at all persuasive to the conservative identity audience that he’s speaking to, however I do think it’s the tactic that other progressive politicians should be making. Taking the message directly to an audience that will be primed to receive it negatively will cut out the laundering that message will receive if left to the Fox News opinion lineup. Furthermore, a politician like Buttigieg already has a bit of intra-party credit after his center pivot in the primary campaign that left him the scorn of many a more progressive voter. I’m also of the mind that Buttigieg is a talented young politician, in that he is malleable and understands that American politics at the federal level requires a delicate approach in order to win moderate or even center-right voters. This is a pitfall I see with more progressive campaigns.
The desire to display ideological purity is compelling, and in an ideal world, exactly what you want to see from a politician. But political reality requires a bit of flexibility during the horse race. Governing is different from campaigning. Progressive voters foolishly believed that, because progressive ideas were broadly popular, that you run on those ideas regardless of the identity cost associated. For example, during the primary Bernie Sanders was in a prime position to take the nomination after the first handful of races. He had the lead in delegate count and could have pivoted his message to appeal to more moderate democratic voters who would gladly accept his policy but were concerned about his electability as a self proclaimed socialist. Instead, his campaign continued to believe they could activate a vast previously unengaged electorate. A noble idea, but not a winning strategy.
An example of the type of progressive politician who doesn’t offend conservatives identity voters is Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown. Brown thought about running in the 2020 Democratic primary but ultimately didn’t. It’s difficult to know how he would have positioned himself in that large field. But his record is clear. He has consistently pushed for increased labor rights while keeping a Midwest moderate identity. Much in the vein of the late Senator Paul Wellstone, Brown has knitted together a coalition of conservative identity but pro-labor voters in an increasingly red Ohio. This is the type of politician we need to promote. Someone who is simultaneously capable of pressing progressive change while keeping a non-offensive political identity.
While I’m personally ecstatic to see the gains made by truly progressive minded politicians in the last handful of years: the rise of the squad and the late career relevance of Sanders. I’m also strategically concerned with how to enact the policies that they so strongly champion. The American system isn’t built for the loud progressive, but it can be transformed by the crafty progressive.
