Regardless of their numbers, rich white liberals have been calling the shots in the Democratic Party since the Kennedy administration.
It has only now become a semi-problem that moderate, non-rich white people have left the party, making it difficult for Dems to win national election. Hence the strategy of importing voters from the Third World - which might work, if they can somehow obtain power again.
When their donors are radical leftists, Democratic politicians have no incentive to take on moderate positions that might appeal to large numbers of voters. Absent appealing positions on issues, they need to resort to shenanigans, like registering non-citizens and dead people. Which, of course, they do.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. The Liberal Patriot has to stop downplaying malevolent behavior.
The Dems' problem isn't that they're too liberal. It's that a majority of them have embraced dangerous, insane ideas.
* Men can't be women and have no place in women's sports or spaces.
* Children can't consent to surgeries or drugs that maim them.
* "From the river to the sea" really does mean "kill the Jews."
* Anti-white and anti-Asian racism really is racism.
* The Ayatollah really was a mass murdering tyrant, not an avuncular fellow with a "bushy white beard and easy smile."*
* Those two ISIS fanboys really were terrorists lobbing nail bombs, not lads out to enjoy a sunny day in New York, who fell into an unfortunate misadventure.
This stuff is NOT liberal. It's illiberal and indicative of tyranny. Calling it "liberal" papers over the threat it poses. It's virulent, dangerous, and threatens everyone --- even the smug fools who embrace it. It's a groupthink that's gripped not just the Democratic party, but also Labour/the Greens/the SNP and a variety of other western political parties. Even the Tories bowed down to it.
The only hope for the Democratic party is to abandon these ideas, and the only way that will happen is if they keep losing elections. Responsible people have to stop voting for them. Vote third party if you have to. But stop voting for people like AOC, Ro Khanna, Seth Moulton, Gavin Newsom, or James Talarico. These people don't have the national best interest at heart.
"With his bushy white beard and easy smile, Ayatollah Khamenei cut a more avuncular figure in public than his perpetually scowling but much more revered mentor, and he was known to be fond of Persian poetry and classic Western novels, especially Victor Hugo’s “Les Misérables.”"
This is such horseshit. The definition of “liberal” has changed from 2000 to now. Unless you’re going to account for this, your entire analysis is garbage.
As I once heard Walter Williams say, socialism works as long as everyone knows each other’s name, such as in a family. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. The family is a crucial institution in society, not to be replaced by government programs.
I grew up in a college town and state capital, in a relatively upper-middle-class neighborhood. During the George W. Bush presidency, neighbors would put up signs saying, "Bush has the ring" (after Lord of the Rings). In high school, a fellow student, who just so happened to be Jewish, rudely (and in very poor taste) labeled our state's governor as Hitler. A number of my classmates would make a big ta-dah out of their being "soooo liberal". I found it all pretty nauseating. One of the interesting things is that, I don't even like Trump. But I dislike wayward and contentious individuals who put up a facade of self-righteousness even more. Sort of like the Pharisees in Jesus' time. That's what I think of when I think of "white liberals" and non-minority members of the "progressive left" (or people who cater to those sensibilities, like Ta-Nehisi Coates). A real cold-heartedness and snobbery toward people who aren't in near-100% agreement with them. And believe me, I like it when left-leaning individuals "have their heart in the right place".
I detest the misuse of the term Liberal. Author should be using the term Progressive. Progs have turned liberal into a dirty word, from the perspective of a person raised in a Detroit UAW Democrat family. Patrick Moynihan is likely rolling in his grave, as is Walter Reuther.
While I agree that this cohort is overwhelmingly white, I think it’s a mistake to label them as such. Like just about every other issue, this is far more about class than race. People who have spent their entire lives in the comfort of the upper middle class are completely clueless about life further down the socioeconomic ladder and readily accept the luxury beliefs peddled by the left.
For too many people, Progressivism has become a religion. More specifically, neo-Calvinism, where strict adherence to the whole canon of beliefs and constant virtue signaling are required to show you are part of the Elect, and not subject to eternal damnation. Unfortunately, politics was never meant to be a religion; the evidence is all around us.
We need to spend some time defining terms. What do we mean by liberal and conservative?
In any event, I just read Yascha Mounk's Substack, and he makes a salient observation: The Simpsons has been on for over twenty years. If we had to guess the political affiliation of Homer and Ned back then, Homer would have been democrat and Ned would have been republican. Today, Homer would be republican and Ned the democrat. Things are changing, and they are changing away from checkbook liberalism.
Everything Ruy wrote here is true: these days white liberals - or put more pejoratively, the wokesters - control who gets nominated for elective offices in Democratic primaries. No one will stick their neck out and dissent in the slightest from wokester orthodoxy for fear of getting their head chopped off. So what you hear is what Gavin Newsom said recently on a podcast, that Democrats should be "...less prone to spending disproportionate amount of time on pronouns, identity politics. More focused on tabletop issues, things that really matter — ..."
The CNN host - of course - did not follow up with the logical question which would go something like this. Does less prone to spending disproportionate amount of time mean: (a) Actually changing their stances on these unpopular cultural positions, or (b) Talk as little as possible about these issues and deceive the public about your real positions in order to get elected; once elected maintain the unpopular positions.
I would bet my life savings and my life itself on (b).
Your comment would explain why the Democrats have broken so many promises: They never intended to keep them. Their 2020 Platform, for instance, promises to raise the federal minimum wage to $15/hour. They left it at $7.25. They promised to repeal Trump's 2017 tax cuts. They left them in place. They promised to override state right-to-work laws with a federal law authorizing the closed shop. They did no such thing. They promised a "21st Century immigration system", which turned out to mean 12 million more illegal aliens. They have been promising tax reform since Jimmy Carter ran for President and have never delivered, because they don't feel any need to.
I find it interesting that you conflate progressives and liberals under the banner of “liberals”. Progressivism is not liberalism, and in fact is fundamentally illiberal. Liberals believe in free speech, reasoned discourse and the values of the Enlightenment generally. Progressives believe in censorship of disfavored views, emotionally appealing polemics whether or not grounded in reason, and consider the historical values of the West suspect at best. They are not the same, and until the Democrats stop allowing progressives to claim they are on the same side as liberals while pursuing illiberal policies they won’t be able to square the circle.
Trump won’t be running in 2028. Dems move left at their peril. Rubio’s speech in Munich shows that he will blow away a far left Dem or a far left agenda. Vance is smart, but young, and too fiery to be president (until he matures and mellows). The moderate Dems will join with Rs and many independents in 2028. The Dems can capture this middle, but not with their current zeal.
The irony is that the so-called white liberals have, in fact, abandoned liberal values. Instead, they have branded their far-left illiberal ideology as the ’Modern liberalism’... Those of us at the center with classical liberal values are now called the Far Right.
What is it about marriage that makes voters Republican? According to the Pew Center, "Women who have never been married are three times as likely to associate with the Democratic Party as with the Republican Party (72% vs. 24%). By a narrower – though still sizable – margin (61% to 37%), never-married men also favor the Democrats."
Parenthood also seems to move people to the Republican Party: "At all age levels, parents are more Republican-oriented than non-parents. For example, 55% of men ages 35 to 44 who have children under 18 identify with or lean toward the GOP. This compares with about a third (36%) of men of the same age who are not parents." Why?
As an ex-Republican who has voted blue since Trump's arrival, I wonder how much of the change in the makeup of the Democratic Party described in this piece is due to changes in political beliefs and how much is due to changes in the definition of those beliefs. There is no doubt that events have driven some views to the extreme in a sort of Newtonian response to the extremism of the Right, but as I've told people who wonder how I've become so "liberal," the center line looks a lot further to the left after you've driven into the ditch.
If you're losing, maybe it's time to pick a new strategy. The "traditional " Democrats have lost. It's not their party, and won't be. Stop denying, start acting.
Regardless of their numbers, rich white liberals have been calling the shots in the Democratic Party since the Kennedy administration.
It has only now become a semi-problem that moderate, non-rich white people have left the party, making it difficult for Dems to win national election. Hence the strategy of importing voters from the Third World - which might work, if they can somehow obtain power again.
When their donors are radical leftists, Democratic politicians have no incentive to take on moderate positions that might appeal to large numbers of voters. Absent appealing positions on issues, they need to resort to shenanigans, like registering non-citizens and dead people. Which, of course, they do.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. The Liberal Patriot has to stop downplaying malevolent behavior.
The Dems' problem isn't that they're too liberal. It's that a majority of them have embraced dangerous, insane ideas.
* Men can't be women and have no place in women's sports or spaces.
* Children can't consent to surgeries or drugs that maim them.
* "From the river to the sea" really does mean "kill the Jews."
* Anti-white and anti-Asian racism really is racism.
* The Ayatollah really was a mass murdering tyrant, not an avuncular fellow with a "bushy white beard and easy smile."*
* Those two ISIS fanboys really were terrorists lobbing nail bombs, not lads out to enjoy a sunny day in New York, who fell into an unfortunate misadventure.
This stuff is NOT liberal. It's illiberal and indicative of tyranny. Calling it "liberal" papers over the threat it poses. It's virulent, dangerous, and threatens everyone --- even the smug fools who embrace it. It's a groupthink that's gripped not just the Democratic party, but also Labour/the Greens/the SNP and a variety of other western political parties. Even the Tories bowed down to it.
The only hope for the Democratic party is to abandon these ideas, and the only way that will happen is if they keep losing elections. Responsible people have to stop voting for them. Vote third party if you have to. But stop voting for people like AOC, Ro Khanna, Seth Moulton, Gavin Newsom, or James Talarico. These people don't have the national best interest at heart.
I'm afraid of them.
*https://www.washingtonpost.com/obituaries/2026/02/28/ayatollah-khamenei-dead-iran/
Paywalled; direct quote:
"With his bushy white beard and easy smile, Ayatollah Khamenei cut a more avuncular figure in public than his perpetually scowling but much more revered mentor, and he was known to be fond of Persian poetry and classic Western novels, especially Victor Hugo’s “Les Misérables.”"
This is such horseshit. The definition of “liberal” has changed from 2000 to now. Unless you’re going to account for this, your entire analysis is garbage.
As I once heard Walter Williams say, socialism works as long as everyone knows each other’s name, such as in a family. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. The family is a crucial institution in society, not to be replaced by government programs.
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."
Even within a family, this breaks down. Deadbeat uncles, deceitful sisters, lazy kids who play video games all day long, etc.
I grew up in a college town and state capital, in a relatively upper-middle-class neighborhood. During the George W. Bush presidency, neighbors would put up signs saying, "Bush has the ring" (after Lord of the Rings). In high school, a fellow student, who just so happened to be Jewish, rudely (and in very poor taste) labeled our state's governor as Hitler. A number of my classmates would make a big ta-dah out of their being "soooo liberal". I found it all pretty nauseating. One of the interesting things is that, I don't even like Trump. But I dislike wayward and contentious individuals who put up a facade of self-righteousness even more. Sort of like the Pharisees in Jesus' time. That's what I think of when I think of "white liberals" and non-minority members of the "progressive left" (or people who cater to those sensibilities, like Ta-Nehisi Coates). A real cold-heartedness and snobbery toward people who aren't in near-100% agreement with them. And believe me, I like it when left-leaning individuals "have their heart in the right place".
I detest the misuse of the term Liberal. Author should be using the term Progressive. Progs have turned liberal into a dirty word, from the perspective of a person raised in a Detroit UAW Democrat family. Patrick Moynihan is likely rolling in his grave, as is Walter Reuther.
While I agree that this cohort is overwhelmingly white, I think it’s a mistake to label them as such. Like just about every other issue, this is far more about class than race. People who have spent their entire lives in the comfort of the upper middle class are completely clueless about life further down the socioeconomic ladder and readily accept the luxury beliefs peddled by the left.
For too many people, Progressivism has become a religion. More specifically, neo-Calvinism, where strict adherence to the whole canon of beliefs and constant virtue signaling are required to show you are part of the Elect, and not subject to eternal damnation. Unfortunately, politics was never meant to be a religion; the evidence is all around us.
We need to spend some time defining terms. What do we mean by liberal and conservative?
In any event, I just read Yascha Mounk's Substack, and he makes a salient observation: The Simpsons has been on for over twenty years. If we had to guess the political affiliation of Homer and Ned back then, Homer would have been democrat and Ned would have been republican. Today, Homer would be republican and Ned the democrat. Things are changing, and they are changing away from checkbook liberalism.
Everything Ruy wrote here is true: these days white liberals - or put more pejoratively, the wokesters - control who gets nominated for elective offices in Democratic primaries. No one will stick their neck out and dissent in the slightest from wokester orthodoxy for fear of getting their head chopped off. So what you hear is what Gavin Newsom said recently on a podcast, that Democrats should be "...less prone to spending disproportionate amount of time on pronouns, identity politics. More focused on tabletop issues, things that really matter — ..."
The CNN host - of course - did not follow up with the logical question which would go something like this. Does less prone to spending disproportionate amount of time mean: (a) Actually changing their stances on these unpopular cultural positions, or (b) Talk as little as possible about these issues and deceive the public about your real positions in order to get elected; once elected maintain the unpopular positions.
I would bet my life savings and my life itself on (b).
À la Spanberger
Your comment would explain why the Democrats have broken so many promises: They never intended to keep them. Their 2020 Platform, for instance, promises to raise the federal minimum wage to $15/hour. They left it at $7.25. They promised to repeal Trump's 2017 tax cuts. They left them in place. They promised to override state right-to-work laws with a federal law authorizing the closed shop. They did no such thing. They promised a "21st Century immigration system", which turned out to mean 12 million more illegal aliens. They have been promising tax reform since Jimmy Carter ran for President and have never delivered, because they don't feel any need to.
Keeping promises is what makes Trump and those Republicans who follow him such a threat. Keeping promises really changes the game.
I find it interesting that you conflate progressives and liberals under the banner of “liberals”. Progressivism is not liberalism, and in fact is fundamentally illiberal. Liberals believe in free speech, reasoned discourse and the values of the Enlightenment generally. Progressives believe in censorship of disfavored views, emotionally appealing polemics whether or not grounded in reason, and consider the historical values of the West suspect at best. They are not the same, and until the Democrats stop allowing progressives to claim they are on the same side as liberals while pursuing illiberal policies they won’t be able to square the circle.
You don’t get to just make up a definition for “progressive.” That’s fundamentally dishonest.
Trump won’t be running in 2028. Dems move left at their peril. Rubio’s speech in Munich shows that he will blow away a far left Dem or a far left agenda. Vance is smart, but young, and too fiery to be president (until he matures and mellows). The moderate Dems will join with Rs and many independents in 2028. The Dems can capture this middle, but not with their current zeal.
The irony is that the so-called white liberals have, in fact, abandoned liberal values. Instead, they have branded their far-left illiberal ideology as the ’Modern liberalism’... Those of us at the center with classical liberal values are now called the Far Right.
The left likes freedom until it gets in charge. Freedom isn't a belief - it is a tactic.
Progressive. Progressing toward power and away from freedom.
What is it about marriage that makes voters Republican? According to the Pew Center, "Women who have never been married are three times as likely to associate with the Democratic Party as with the Republican Party (72% vs. 24%). By a narrower – though still sizable – margin (61% to 37%), never-married men also favor the Democrats."
Parenthood also seems to move people to the Republican Party: "At all age levels, parents are more Republican-oriented than non-parents. For example, 55% of men ages 35 to 44 who have children under 18 identify with or lean toward the GOP. This compares with about a third (36%) of men of the same age who are not parents." Why?
Maybe they are more likely to have been mugged by reality.
It is the old quip: mortgage, marriage and munchkins make you more likely to vote republican.
Married men are the only net taxpayers in the economy. So they are probably hyper aware of being the social milk cow.
It’s logic, and the realization that pure self interest is not as attractive when raising a family.
As an ex-Republican who has voted blue since Trump's arrival, I wonder how much of the change in the makeup of the Democratic Party described in this piece is due to changes in political beliefs and how much is due to changes in the definition of those beliefs. There is no doubt that events have driven some views to the extreme in a sort of Newtonian response to the extremism of the Right, but as I've told people who wonder how I've become so "liberal," the center line looks a lot further to the left after you've driven into the ditch.
Counterpoint: you were never a Republican.
Ooh, I've got some ancient writing on this site that might prove you wrong. I posted it so folks could see the good, bad and ugly.
If you're losing, maybe it's time to pick a new strategy. The "traditional " Democrats have lost. It's not their party, and won't be. Stop denying, start acting.