Republicans believe in most or all of them. And people trust Republicans to adhere to them.
Plus, they miss something that's critical: "Progressives" now own the Democratic Party and they are folks who enjoy their special status and who are convinced they are "right" (which is more important to them psychologically than is winning).
I honestly believe any politician who accepted -- and believed in -- Ruy's bullet points at the end of the article would be elected president in a landslide. He wrote them down as a liberal and, I presume, a Democrat. I, a rockribbed Republican and a conservative, can put my hand on my heart and pledge to vote for anyone, even a green alien -- well, a naturalized green alien -- who tells me those are his (or her) standards.
Do you think any "progressives" would vote for such a candidate?
We would....voters for Democrats for 50 years until this election.
....one quibble: I believe he is inaccurate about the need for changing policing. A lot (A LOT) of the issues some people have about policing are based on anecdotes, not data.
Agree. We evolved as a species to respond to anecdotes. We did not evolve to react emotionally to the law of large numbers (i.e., statistics). That is something that has to be trained into us.
Great points, but until Dems purge the term "uneducated" from their vernacular, they will never again be a coalition of much, but college graduates. Many, way too impressed with their C averages, in Gender Studies. Everyone is educated in something. Even a medical degree is of limited use , when your car breaks down or the heating system bites the dust, during a blizzard. If Dems cannot manage to respect everyone, who makes the US economy possible, Reps are going to have a good run.
The outright distain, many Dems have for the people, lacking sheepskins,, can no longer be denied, and it begins at the top. Listening to the Obamas, with their $75 million dollar real estate portfolio, label, lower and middle class voters, racist or misogynistic, if they refuse to support the person that made voter's lives, $13K a year, more expensive, was a new low in US politics. 1/2 of US families live on $75K, or less a year. Of that group, 40% live on, less than $45K a year. They are irredeemable, If they refuse to ask for more inflation, and millions more unvetted migrants, to flood their already failing schools?
Along with losing the phrase "uneducated", the party must stop, actively making the lives of middle and lower earners worse. Dem policies did not just fail to improve the lives of lower and middle earning Americans, Dem polices made their living standards worse. They are poorer, less safe, and already failing schools, are now overflowing with new students, in need of special assistance. Imagine how the parents at the most exclusive US private schools would react, if suddenly, student numbers increased by 25%, and new students were unable to speak English, or lacked any previous formal education.
Dems, literally, removed even the little luxuries, lower earners enjoy. It might be a monthly trip to a McDonalds, a long drive to visit Grandma, summer day camp, or a very modest vacation. Dems took all that away, without a thought, and expected voters to say thank you, and ask for more? Along with a change in language, Dems need to acquire humility and empathy or be prepared, for a very long political winter.
EXACTLY! Wisdom and experience are 2 things that can't be bought. I don't know why in the world they think a 26 year old with a Master's Degree is somehow smarter than the 50 year old with a successful family, job, years of responsibility and ups and downs. It makes no sense. I personally admire people who have less and still make it work. That's a great quality. The weird flex about how someone has a degree is an expert? Expert in what? One subject. What does gender-studies have to do with life? Nothing.
can you or anyone else find a single quote from an elected democrat that makes any of these assertions? can you give me an example of a Democratic policy that produced the results you are describing here?
Rather than dissecting ad nauseum every aspect of Election 2024, let's reach for some larger and more lasting truths that can advance national interest above a multitude of more parochial interests.
Election 2024 may have witnessed the rebirth and infancy of a more more mobile, moderate American middle that belongs to neither political party, but by its independence can hold sway over the direction of either party. The very suggestion of such a middle ground will of course have the political far Left and Right seething, and we are already witnessing them trying to exploit difference rather than resolve them.
Trump's greatest success was to present a vision for America that saw him make large gains with minorities, youth, blue collar workers and others historically aligned with the Democratic Party.
Unless Democrats grasp the lessons of Trump's success, they will become a permanent minority party of angry, embittered know-nothings.
If you go talk to tuned in liberals, people who listen to Pod Save America and watch Rachel Maddow, try even lightly suggesting that maaaybe some of their conspiracy theories about Trump and Republicans aren't true. You'll get blown out of the conversation. People don't change the way they think, or what they feel just because they lost an election, not even to a small degree. Not even the stuff that's very apparently crazy.
The core of the Democratic Party thinks the situation is very different than it actually is, they think their position in society, philosophically and politically, is very different than it actually is. I'm pretty sure this marks the moment when it became clear to history this version of liberalism, American liberalism in the first half of the 21st century, is a minority movement that does not perform well politically at the national level for its entire run. Dems right now think their messaging was bad, they'll blame inflation and the economy, they'll just throw their hands up in the air and say they don't understand how anyone voted for him... because the last thing they're going to do is change. They're going to stick with the radicalism, they're going to stick with the racial zero sum game, they're going to stick with men vs. women, they're going to stick with this weird hodgepodge of unintelligent ideas derived from failed Marxist professors whose names they don't even know, despite them living rent free in their heads. And Americans just aren't going to have any of it. One by one legacy media outlets will die off, legacy entertainment companies will die off, the college loan scam for junk degrees will become less popular or even face governmental reform, and this iteration of liberalism will increasingly lose its share of the mainstream public forum. Until in 2052 we get another Bill Clinton, who doesn't represent any of it.
I've noticed this, too. Much of what I'm reading is progressive leftists basically saying they haven't been given a shot and that Democrats should run much farther to the left and own those positions without apology. They truly believe the Democrats are center. Insanity.
The dictionary definition of fascism (Mussolini's version) is the fusion of the state and business interests. As you have amply demonstrated in your essays, this is today's Democrats. Meanwhile, the Republicans are moving away from this point of view, though not without dissention. To get to Nazism, you add anti-Semitism. Where is that to be found today? Both versions were war mongers. There is some justice in tarring the Bushies with that brush (and now the Democrats have embraced the Cheneys) but it is certainly not true of Trump, Vance, Gabbard etc. Vance and Gabbard have seen the horrors up close and personal.
I actually agree with your principles. So do a majority of Republicans and only a minority of Democrats. Perhaps there is a silent majority of Democrats that agree but most of those seem to have signed on with Trump. Equality of outcome is baked into Democratic messaging. I think there may be a majority of Democrats that are patriots but the party is also home to all the anti-patriots. I know no Republican who would disagree with your points about racism but lots of Democrats would. No one wants immigrants mistreated. Many Republicans would disagree that they are a net plus but seemingly all Democrats agree with open borders. I remind you that Trump is married to one. A more nuanced view held by some Republicans but no Democrats that I can identify is that immigrants are a plus in the long term but we need a pause to let the ones already here assimilate. Most Republicans would agree about police misconduct (Justice for Peanut) but would add the media/activist behavior is inflaming the situation. Democrats seem to to be moving away from "defund" which is good since POCs are the most heavily victimized population. Agree on gender but other than the TERFs few Democrats would. And the TERFs are subject to threats and actual violence. No one has done more to restore free speech than Elon Musk and see what side he is on. I could argue about climate change being serious but agree with your policy position. The Democratic position seems to be EVs without electricity. Again, that is the policy pursued by Republicans not Democrats. Agree on wealth and degrowth but again it is the Republicans who are pushing that position, not Democrats. Degrowth actually precedes communism. See Malthus. Regulatory reform is a Republican priority. The last Democrat to be interested was Jimmy Carter. There seems to be interest in both parties about industrial policy. The CHIPS Act stripped of all the billions in grift is a good example of Democratic interest but on the other side of the coin are J. D. Vance and Owen Cass. Bottom line is Republicans need to get rid of McConnell and his corporate sponsors and Democrats need to dump the tech oligarchs and banksters. The former seems much more likely.
I know you are now affiliated with AEI and find it to be a more congenial home. I think you would find the new version of the Republican party to be the same and someone of your talents would be a great help in helping us finish the job of remaking the Republicans. There is a lot of talk about realignment but a really important part of that is internal to the Republican party.
You are describing where the modern Republican party is going, or has been for a while now, and more importantly, where the middle voters are who delivered the presidency to Trump. The elitist progressives who dominate the Democratic party might lie that they believe these things in an effort to deceive the voters into voting for them but they do not actually believe any of it and will not implement these policies. Everyone knows that Democrats lie about being more centrist to get elected, and then vote for the most extreme leftist policies when they get into office. The voters have fallen for it many times and I wonder why. I think that con is beginning to fall apart along with the rest of the party, and should have happened long ago! I do greatly appreciate your insights and analysis and read every one of your columns. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life, and likely never will, but we do need to understand where our opposition is coming from and I have learned a lot from you. Thank you.
Well, to quote Randy Quaid as Russel Case in "Independence Day," "I been sayin' it and sayin' it. Ain't I been sayin' it? I've said since June Trump had 312 EVs and the popular vote locked up. This is all evident in voter registrations. ZERO to do with poll.
So what am I seeing now? Democrats were just 4 points from losing NJ and NM. The GOP will turn loose the human voter registration machine Scott Presler in the mid Atlantic and by 2028, just as he did in PA, he will have VA and NJ---at minimum---voting for J. D. Vance. Then it really is all over. If Ds haven't recovered by then, in 2030 there is a new reapportionment/census. Last time red states got screwed by the Census Bureau. One of Trump's early, key appointees will be the head of the Census Bureau. If it corrects even HALF that error in 2030 (i.e., 8-15 EVs added back to the red states) on TOP of the 6 new EVs the population changes are bringing to the red states, the electoral college will be almost impossible for Democrats after 204.
That is true when leftist activists down to the local level are considered to be included in the party "leadership." That is why the remaining centrist Democrats should be looking to join other centrists like me to form a centrist third major party. Perhaps it should be called the "Liberal Patriot Party."
It's funny, and ironic, that all this says is that voters want common sense, American values and principles reinstated, the folks who do the work and foot the bill honored, and the country considered first. Hmmm. Where have we heard this?
Extremist ideology based on overthrowing tradition, history and evidence, is not welcome, and will not be supported. Welcome to reality.
Mostly agree with Ruy. Agree that D's (my party) have some re-thinking to do. However, a few complementary points.
1. Probably a good idea to not generalize overly from one election. 2024 is somewhat similar to 2016, but not to 2018, 2020, 2022.
2. There were many 2024-cycle-specific MAJOR factors in 2024 election result: Above all, Biden's disastrous decision to run for re-election. Also, Biden's disastrous permitting of illegal immigration from 2021 until 6 months ago. The worst inflation since the 1980s. Biden's awful approval numbers and poor ability to communicate with the public.
3. OK, this one is not 2024-cycle-specific: Harris's bad choice 5 years ago to raise her hand for the progressive wish-list, a legacy she struggled to explain or escape from.
Richard, I'll say that Democrats come in various flavors, such as progressive, mainstream liberal, moderate, and even moderately conservative. I'd say "moderate" fits me best. I dislike progressivism and I dislike MAGA even more.
Buy why. MAGA is more on board with Ruy's principles than are traditional Republicans or Democrats.
I agree it is a bad idea to generalize from one election but political people are always short-term thinkers. Still though Ruy documents the trends through several cycles. The realignment of the parties has flipped the traditional Republican turnout advantage in the mid-terms to the Democrats. As for 2020, well 2020.
As formerly one of those "traditional" Republicans (and a former U.S. Army officer) I can state that one of the "principles" grossly violated by Trump in his role as Commander in Chief of the armed forces was his incitement of his MAGA supporters to riot on January 6, 2021, against the electoral process established by the U.S. Constitution,. That was further exacerbated by his dereliction of his Constitutional duty to act to protect the U.S. Capitol against the rioters. I would note that similar views were expressed by retired Admiral William McRaven in a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, explaining why he could not support Trump, but also not endorsing Harris. If either the Dems or the Republicans were both smart and concerned about upholding the Constitution, they would have nominated a prominent retired military officer like McRaven the way that both parties competed to do with retired General Dwight Eisenhower in the 1952 presidential election.
McRaven is the embodiment of what Ike warned us about in his speech about the Military Industrial Complex. I would suggest Douglas MacGregor, Daniel Davis, or the exhumed corpse of Smedley Butler.
I don't recall ever having heard about -- much less having had a chance to vote for or against -- any of the individuals that you mentioned.
It is certainly appropriate for all government officials to to be skeptical of WHATEVER prospective contractors are "selling" to them., because it is obviously in the interest of the contractors to do so under financial terms that are favorable to them.
But that doesn't mean that the products and services that they are offering (in the defense industry and all others) aren't in the national interest. President Eisenhower was no pacifist, and in acknowledging the existence of the "military/industrial complex" was certainly not arguing for disarmament, but rather for more cost-effective armament. His predecessor, Harry Truman, became Vice President, and then President, largely because of his entirely patriotic efforts as a Senator during World War 2 to insure that money spent on the war effort was being spent in a cost-effective manner. Acknowledging historical facts like these is what I regard as true non-partisan "liberal patriotism."
No incitement occurred except in the minds of the media
And Trump offered NG support but it was refused by Pelosi/McConnell who were responsible for Capitol security. You need to consume some media which doesn't constantly lie.
You need to view actual videos of the event and listen to the testimony of numerous Republicans in the White House and elsewhere (as in Georgia) as to what actually occurred on 1/6/21.
While I'm not any sort of "war hero" myself, in becoming an Army officer, I took an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and (in this case) domestic. If you ever took such an oath, apparently you didn't know or care about its importance to the future of the democratic/republican form of government that has served the United States so well. And in that respect, you are just like the woke crowd that idolized Harris and Walz.
Thank you for your always insightful comments on the Democratic party. Having never been on that side of things, I am interested in learning more. You lay out an excellent set of principles for a reasonable approach to governing this country, but the Republicans already endorse many of these ideas. The modern Democrats are captured by the hard Left and hate all of them. They don't listen to any dissent and drive out anyone who disagrees. Truly, I believe that the Democratic party is beyond reform, and should be abandoned to the Left. While I prefer where the Republicans are going right now with their America-first focus, we do need a reasonable opposition party also because one-party rule is never good. So the center-left classical liberals should start to think about building a new party, and the principles you have laid out are a good place to start.
A couple of other numbers: There was no "gender gap," but there was a "marriage gap." Ds simply no longer attract married people. Texas was a bloodbath in so many ways, but black men in TX: 34% for Trump. We haven't seen it yet but just as I prophesied Trump 312/pop vote win back in JUNE, I'm gonna flat out tell you that the Ds are facing a major fracture over Techhies/AI and green. They are totally incompatible. Green can't deliver a fraction of what AI will need, and Techhies will not stomach their prize AI projects being shut down. So even if socially hostile to the GOP, they are going to continue moving right.
The last thing I will say is as a historian. While it's tempting for D consultants and analysists to view what happened as a one-off that can be "fixed" by adoping Trump's positions, it's vastly harder than that. As of now, the Ds have been successfully re-cast like the Rs were for about 25 years---as the "me too, only not as much" party. This is not a flip left (2020)/flip right (2024) election. It is a LONG MARCH that saw Rs increase their vote share (exclude 2024, where they really increased their total votes) in each of the last three elections, while total D votes have remained basically stagnant. Those blacks and hispanics who voted Trump will MOVE to the GOP. Trump was the open door, just as it took blacks two cycles in 1932=1936 to move to the Democrats. Then they were locked in for 90 years.
It takes too much energy and effort to continually realign one's overall voting preferences. It's not that the Democrats lost these people this election. Many are gone for good.
Absolutely spot on! When will the democrats learn that the overwhelming majority of American voters are not Harvard faculty members? The “Harris fights for they/them, Trump fights for You” was the most powerful thing in the world.
I’m gay. I’m all for people who want to change sexes to do so. But they must understand that that is still way outside the norm. I have a friend who transitioned to “non-binary” and I still mess up and say “yes ma’am” or things like that and she gets it - it’s not hate is 40+ years of upbringing to respond that way. There are people who are being intolerant but from all my groups of friends not a single one of them hates anyone or wishes any person ill will or harm.
Language police - that is the police force we should defund, not the fine men and women who risk their lives every day to help our fellow citizens. Are there bad ones? Sure. Are they the norm? Nope. Root them out and get rid of them but don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
Democrats need to re learn common sense. Things change and society is better now and we should acknowledge and celebrate that. This is not 1920’s America where lynchings are common place or gays are beaten up outside bars or blacks are denied opportunity because they are black. Americans are fundamentally decent honest well meaning people not the ogres the dnc sees everything they see a MAN in a pickup truck.
I have a daughter who is "gay" in the new sense of the term. By all objective measures, she is an excellent, "patriotic" citizen, simply wants to be treated as such, and overwhelmingly is. On national holidays, she flys one flag in front of her house, which is an American flag.
As a matter of semantics that have been excessively perverted by leftist "newspeak," I dislike categorizing her as part of the "LBGTQ+" community (with particular skepticism as to whatever the "Q" and the "+" signify). I would prefer an objective, non-judgmental characterization as "people with non-standard sexual/gender orientations." But I haven't figured out an acronym for that which would catch the fancy of the most influential "influencers," whoever the hell they are anymore.
Those bullet points are equally as agreeable as they would be difficult (if not impossible) for the Democrats to implement at any level. I'll give my analysis of a few, going from most likely to least likely:
"Degrowth is the worst idea on the left since Communism. Ordinary voters want abundance: more stuff, more opportunity, cheaper prices, nicer, more comfortable lives. The only way to provide this is with more growth, not less."
I think literal degrowth is a very fringe idea within the Democratic party coalition. They aren't opposed to growth for its own sake, but definitely don't have the temperament to implement growth favorable policies outside of the growth that counts from government spending.
"National economic development should prioritize the “left-behind” areas of the country. The New Deal under Franklin Roosevelt did this and we can do it today. “Trickle-down” economics from rich metropolitan areas is not working."
Democrats have generally been better on this type of thing until they became a fringe party that's non-existent outside of deep blue metro areas. That said, anything with government spending involved will not get opposed so I give this a reasonable chance. That said, the results are likely to be like the CA high speed rail project where nothing actually gets built because.....
"We need to make it much easier to build things, from housing to transmission lines to nuclear reactors. That cannot happen without serious regulatory and permitting reform."
Something like this is 100% impossible to implement with Democrats. If there's one client class the Democrats are beholden to, it's those whose livelihoods depend on making things as obtuse, cumbersome, expensive, and sclerotic as possible for anyone that wants to build.
These are good principles.
Republicans believe in most or all of them. And people trust Republicans to adhere to them.
Plus, they miss something that's critical: "Progressives" now own the Democratic Party and they are folks who enjoy their special status and who are convinced they are "right" (which is more important to them psychologically than is winning).
I honestly believe any politician who accepted -- and believed in -- Ruy's bullet points at the end of the article would be elected president in a landslide. He wrote them down as a liberal and, I presume, a Democrat. I, a rockribbed Republican and a conservative, can put my hand on my heart and pledge to vote for anyone, even a green alien -- well, a naturalized green alien -- who tells me those are his (or her) standards.
Do you think any "progressives" would vote for such a candidate?
We would....voters for Democrats for 50 years until this election.
....one quibble: I believe he is inaccurate about the need for changing policing. A lot (A LOT) of the issues some people have about policing are based on anecdotes, not data.
The problem is, anecdotes are more powerful than data to a lot of voters.
Agree. We evolved as a species to respond to anecdotes. We did not evolve to react emotionally to the law of large numbers (i.e., statistics). That is something that has to be trained into us.
I agree 100%
Great points, but until Dems purge the term "uneducated" from their vernacular, they will never again be a coalition of much, but college graduates. Many, way too impressed with their C averages, in Gender Studies. Everyone is educated in something. Even a medical degree is of limited use , when your car breaks down or the heating system bites the dust, during a blizzard. If Dems cannot manage to respect everyone, who makes the US economy possible, Reps are going to have a good run.
The outright distain, many Dems have for the people, lacking sheepskins,, can no longer be denied, and it begins at the top. Listening to the Obamas, with their $75 million dollar real estate portfolio, label, lower and middle class voters, racist or misogynistic, if they refuse to support the person that made voter's lives, $13K a year, more expensive, was a new low in US politics. 1/2 of US families live on $75K, or less a year. Of that group, 40% live on, less than $45K a year. They are irredeemable, If they refuse to ask for more inflation, and millions more unvetted migrants, to flood their already failing schools?
Along with losing the phrase "uneducated", the party must stop, actively making the lives of middle and lower earners worse. Dem policies did not just fail to improve the lives of lower and middle earning Americans, Dem polices made their living standards worse. They are poorer, less safe, and already failing schools, are now overflowing with new students, in need of special assistance. Imagine how the parents at the most exclusive US private schools would react, if suddenly, student numbers increased by 25%, and new students were unable to speak English, or lacked any previous formal education.
Dems, literally, removed even the little luxuries, lower earners enjoy. It might be a monthly trip to a McDonalds, a long drive to visit Grandma, summer day camp, or a very modest vacation. Dems took all that away, without a thought, and expected voters to say thank you, and ask for more? Along with a change in language, Dems need to acquire humility and empathy or be prepared, for a very long political winter.
EXACTLY! Wisdom and experience are 2 things that can't be bought. I don't know why in the world they think a 26 year old with a Master's Degree is somehow smarter than the 50 year old with a successful family, job, years of responsibility and ups and downs. It makes no sense. I personally admire people who have less and still make it work. That's a great quality. The weird flex about how someone has a degree is an expert? Expert in what? One subject. What does gender-studies have to do with life? Nothing.
can you or anyone else find a single quote from an elected democrat that makes any of these assertions? can you give me an example of a Democratic policy that produced the results you are describing here?
Rather than dissecting ad nauseum every aspect of Election 2024, let's reach for some larger and more lasting truths that can advance national interest above a multitude of more parochial interests.
Election 2024 may have witnessed the rebirth and infancy of a more more mobile, moderate American middle that belongs to neither political party, but by its independence can hold sway over the direction of either party. The very suggestion of such a middle ground will of course have the political far Left and Right seething, and we are already witnessing them trying to exploit difference rather than resolve them.
Trump's greatest success was to present a vision for America that saw him make large gains with minorities, youth, blue collar workers and others historically aligned with the Democratic Party.
Unless Democrats grasp the lessons of Trump's success, they will become a permanent minority party of angry, embittered know-nothings.
If you go talk to tuned in liberals, people who listen to Pod Save America and watch Rachel Maddow, try even lightly suggesting that maaaybe some of their conspiracy theories about Trump and Republicans aren't true. You'll get blown out of the conversation. People don't change the way they think, or what they feel just because they lost an election, not even to a small degree. Not even the stuff that's very apparently crazy.
The core of the Democratic Party thinks the situation is very different than it actually is, they think their position in society, philosophically and politically, is very different than it actually is. I'm pretty sure this marks the moment when it became clear to history this version of liberalism, American liberalism in the first half of the 21st century, is a minority movement that does not perform well politically at the national level for its entire run. Dems right now think their messaging was bad, they'll blame inflation and the economy, they'll just throw their hands up in the air and say they don't understand how anyone voted for him... because the last thing they're going to do is change. They're going to stick with the radicalism, they're going to stick with the racial zero sum game, they're going to stick with men vs. women, they're going to stick with this weird hodgepodge of unintelligent ideas derived from failed Marxist professors whose names they don't even know, despite them living rent free in their heads. And Americans just aren't going to have any of it. One by one legacy media outlets will die off, legacy entertainment companies will die off, the college loan scam for junk degrees will become less popular or even face governmental reform, and this iteration of liberalism will increasingly lose its share of the mainstream public forum. Until in 2052 we get another Bill Clinton, who doesn't represent any of it.
I've noticed this, too. Much of what I'm reading is progressive leftists basically saying they haven't been given a shot and that Democrats should run much farther to the left and own those positions without apology. They truly believe the Democrats are center. Insanity.
The dictionary definition of fascism (Mussolini's version) is the fusion of the state and business interests. As you have amply demonstrated in your essays, this is today's Democrats. Meanwhile, the Republicans are moving away from this point of view, though not without dissention. To get to Nazism, you add anti-Semitism. Where is that to be found today? Both versions were war mongers. There is some justice in tarring the Bushies with that brush (and now the Democrats have embraced the Cheneys) but it is certainly not true of Trump, Vance, Gabbard etc. Vance and Gabbard have seen the horrors up close and personal.
I actually agree with your principles. So do a majority of Republicans and only a minority of Democrats. Perhaps there is a silent majority of Democrats that agree but most of those seem to have signed on with Trump. Equality of outcome is baked into Democratic messaging. I think there may be a majority of Democrats that are patriots but the party is also home to all the anti-patriots. I know no Republican who would disagree with your points about racism but lots of Democrats would. No one wants immigrants mistreated. Many Republicans would disagree that they are a net plus but seemingly all Democrats agree with open borders. I remind you that Trump is married to one. A more nuanced view held by some Republicans but no Democrats that I can identify is that immigrants are a plus in the long term but we need a pause to let the ones already here assimilate. Most Republicans would agree about police misconduct (Justice for Peanut) but would add the media/activist behavior is inflaming the situation. Democrats seem to to be moving away from "defund" which is good since POCs are the most heavily victimized population. Agree on gender but other than the TERFs few Democrats would. And the TERFs are subject to threats and actual violence. No one has done more to restore free speech than Elon Musk and see what side he is on. I could argue about climate change being serious but agree with your policy position. The Democratic position seems to be EVs without electricity. Again, that is the policy pursued by Republicans not Democrats. Agree on wealth and degrowth but again it is the Republicans who are pushing that position, not Democrats. Degrowth actually precedes communism. See Malthus. Regulatory reform is a Republican priority. The last Democrat to be interested was Jimmy Carter. There seems to be interest in both parties about industrial policy. The CHIPS Act stripped of all the billions in grift is a good example of Democratic interest but on the other side of the coin are J. D. Vance and Owen Cass. Bottom line is Republicans need to get rid of McConnell and his corporate sponsors and Democrats need to dump the tech oligarchs and banksters. The former seems much more likely.
I know you are now affiliated with AEI and find it to be a more congenial home. I think you would find the new version of the Republican party to be the same and someone of your talents would be a great help in helping us finish the job of remaking the Republicans. There is a lot of talk about realignment but a really important part of that is internal to the Republican party.
I apologize for the lack of paragraphs. I put the breaks in but substack ran it all together.
You are describing where the modern Republican party is going, or has been for a while now, and more importantly, where the middle voters are who delivered the presidency to Trump. The elitist progressives who dominate the Democratic party might lie that they believe these things in an effort to deceive the voters into voting for them but they do not actually believe any of it and will not implement these policies. Everyone knows that Democrats lie about being more centrist to get elected, and then vote for the most extreme leftist policies when they get into office. The voters have fallen for it many times and I wonder why. I think that con is beginning to fall apart along with the rest of the party, and should have happened long ago! I do greatly appreciate your insights and analysis and read every one of your columns. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life, and likely never will, but we do need to understand where our opposition is coming from and I have learned a lot from you. Thank you.
Well, to quote Randy Quaid as Russel Case in "Independence Day," "I been sayin' it and sayin' it. Ain't I been sayin' it? I've said since June Trump had 312 EVs and the popular vote locked up. This is all evident in voter registrations. ZERO to do with poll.
So what am I seeing now? Democrats were just 4 points from losing NJ and NM. The GOP will turn loose the human voter registration machine Scott Presler in the mid Atlantic and by 2028, just as he did in PA, he will have VA and NJ---at minimum---voting for J. D. Vance. Then it really is all over. If Ds haven't recovered by then, in 2030 there is a new reapportionment/census. Last time red states got screwed by the Census Bureau. One of Trump's early, key appointees will be the head of the Census Bureau. If it corrects even HALF that error in 2030 (i.e., 8-15 EVs added back to the red states) on TOP of the 6 new EVs the population changes are bringing to the red states, the electoral college will be almost impossible for Democrats after 204.
Amen to all your points
But the listed principles have zero chance of being adopted with the current Democratic leadership. ZERO
That is true when leftist activists down to the local level are considered to be included in the party "leadership." That is why the remaining centrist Democrats should be looking to join other centrists like me to form a centrist third major party. Perhaps it should be called the "Liberal Patriot Party."
Great article and I hope the Democratic party considers these principals. I am going to save your article for future reference. Thank you.
Ruy wrote pretty much this identical article ages ago. You can see how much the Democrats listened.
It's funny, and ironic, that all this says is that voters want common sense, American values and principles reinstated, the folks who do the work and foot the bill honored, and the country considered first. Hmmm. Where have we heard this?
Extremist ideology based on overthrowing tradition, history and evidence, is not welcome, and will not be supported. Welcome to reality.
Mostly agree with Ruy. Agree that D's (my party) have some re-thinking to do. However, a few complementary points.
1. Probably a good idea to not generalize overly from one election. 2024 is somewhat similar to 2016, but not to 2018, 2020, 2022.
2. There were many 2024-cycle-specific MAJOR factors in 2024 election result: Above all, Biden's disastrous decision to run for re-election. Also, Biden's disastrous permitting of illegal immigration from 2021 until 6 months ago. The worst inflation since the 1980s. Biden's awful approval numbers and poor ability to communicate with the public.
3. OK, this one is not 2024-cycle-specific: Harris's bad choice 5 years ago to raise her hand for the progressive wish-list, a legacy she struggled to explain or escape from.
So why are the Democrats "your party"? The principles seem much more Republican.
Richard, I'll say that Democrats come in various flavors, such as progressive, mainstream liberal, moderate, and even moderately conservative. I'd say "moderate" fits me best. I dislike progressivism and I dislike MAGA even more.
Buy why. MAGA is more on board with Ruy's principles than are traditional Republicans or Democrats.
I agree it is a bad idea to generalize from one election but political people are always short-term thinkers. Still though Ruy documents the trends through several cycles. The realignment of the parties has flipped the traditional Republican turnout advantage in the mid-terms to the Democrats. As for 2020, well 2020.
As formerly one of those "traditional" Republicans (and a former U.S. Army officer) I can state that one of the "principles" grossly violated by Trump in his role as Commander in Chief of the armed forces was his incitement of his MAGA supporters to riot on January 6, 2021, against the electoral process established by the U.S. Constitution,. That was further exacerbated by his dereliction of his Constitutional duty to act to protect the U.S. Capitol against the rioters. I would note that similar views were expressed by retired Admiral William McRaven in a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, explaining why he could not support Trump, but also not endorsing Harris. If either the Dems or the Republicans were both smart and concerned about upholding the Constitution, they would have nominated a prominent retired military officer like McRaven the way that both parties competed to do with retired General Dwight Eisenhower in the 1952 presidential election.
McRaven is the embodiment of what Ike warned us about in his speech about the Military Industrial Complex. I would suggest Douglas MacGregor, Daniel Davis, or the exhumed corpse of Smedley Butler.
I don't recall ever having heard about -- much less having had a chance to vote for or against -- any of the individuals that you mentioned.
It is certainly appropriate for all government officials to to be skeptical of WHATEVER prospective contractors are "selling" to them., because it is obviously in the interest of the contractors to do so under financial terms that are favorable to them.
But that doesn't mean that the products and services that they are offering (in the defense industry and all others) aren't in the national interest. President Eisenhower was no pacifist, and in acknowledging the existence of the "military/industrial complex" was certainly not arguing for disarmament, but rather for more cost-effective armament. His predecessor, Harry Truman, became Vice President, and then President, largely because of his entirely patriotic efforts as a Senator during World War 2 to insure that money spent on the war effort was being spent in a cost-effective manner. Acknowledging historical facts like these is what I regard as true non-partisan "liberal patriotism."
No incitement occurred except in the minds of the media
And Trump offered NG support but it was refused by Pelosi/McConnell who were responsible for Capitol security. You need to consume some media which doesn't constantly lie.
You need to view actual videos of the event and listen to the testimony of numerous Republicans in the White House and elsewhere (as in Georgia) as to what actually occurred on 1/6/21.
While I'm not any sort of "war hero" myself, in becoming an Army officer, I took an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and (in this case) domestic. If you ever took such an oath, apparently you didn't know or care about its importance to the future of the democratic/republican form of government that has served the United States so well. And in that respect, you are just like the woke crowd that idolized Harris and Walz.
Thank you for your always insightful comments on the Democratic party. Having never been on that side of things, I am interested in learning more. You lay out an excellent set of principles for a reasonable approach to governing this country, but the Republicans already endorse many of these ideas. The modern Democrats are captured by the hard Left and hate all of them. They don't listen to any dissent and drive out anyone who disagrees. Truly, I believe that the Democratic party is beyond reform, and should be abandoned to the Left. While I prefer where the Republicans are going right now with their America-first focus, we do need a reasonable opposition party also because one-party rule is never good. So the center-left classical liberals should start to think about building a new party, and the principles you have laid out are a good place to start.
A couple of other numbers: There was no "gender gap," but there was a "marriage gap." Ds simply no longer attract married people. Texas was a bloodbath in so many ways, but black men in TX: 34% for Trump. We haven't seen it yet but just as I prophesied Trump 312/pop vote win back in JUNE, I'm gonna flat out tell you that the Ds are facing a major fracture over Techhies/AI and green. They are totally incompatible. Green can't deliver a fraction of what AI will need, and Techhies will not stomach their prize AI projects being shut down. So even if socially hostile to the GOP, they are going to continue moving right.
The last thing I will say is as a historian. While it's tempting for D consultants and analysists to view what happened as a one-off that can be "fixed" by adoping Trump's positions, it's vastly harder than that. As of now, the Ds have been successfully re-cast like the Rs were for about 25 years---as the "me too, only not as much" party. This is not a flip left (2020)/flip right (2024) election. It is a LONG MARCH that saw Rs increase their vote share (exclude 2024, where they really increased their total votes) in each of the last three elections, while total D votes have remained basically stagnant. Those blacks and hispanics who voted Trump will MOVE to the GOP. Trump was the open door, just as it took blacks two cycles in 1932=1936 to move to the Democrats. Then they were locked in for 90 years.
It takes too much energy and effort to continually realign one's overall voting preferences. It's not that the Democrats lost these people this election. Many are gone for good.
Absolutely spot on! When will the democrats learn that the overwhelming majority of American voters are not Harvard faculty members? The “Harris fights for they/them, Trump fights for You” was the most powerful thing in the world.
I’m gay. I’m all for people who want to change sexes to do so. But they must understand that that is still way outside the norm. I have a friend who transitioned to “non-binary” and I still mess up and say “yes ma’am” or things like that and she gets it - it’s not hate is 40+ years of upbringing to respond that way. There are people who are being intolerant but from all my groups of friends not a single one of them hates anyone or wishes any person ill will or harm.
Language police - that is the police force we should defund, not the fine men and women who risk their lives every day to help our fellow citizens. Are there bad ones? Sure. Are they the norm? Nope. Root them out and get rid of them but don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
Democrats need to re learn common sense. Things change and society is better now and we should acknowledge and celebrate that. This is not 1920’s America where lynchings are common place or gays are beaten up outside bars or blacks are denied opportunity because they are black. Americans are fundamentally decent honest well meaning people not the ogres the dnc sees everything they see a MAN in a pickup truck.
I have a daughter who is "gay" in the new sense of the term. By all objective measures, she is an excellent, "patriotic" citizen, simply wants to be treated as such, and overwhelmingly is. On national holidays, she flys one flag in front of her house, which is an American flag.
As a matter of semantics that have been excessively perverted by leftist "newspeak," I dislike categorizing her as part of the "LBGTQ+" community (with particular skepticism as to whatever the "Q" and the "+" signify). I would prefer an objective, non-judgmental characterization as "people with non-standard sexual/gender orientations." But I haven't figured out an acronym for that which would catch the fancy of the most influential "influencers," whoever the hell they are anymore.
I'll vote for that. But, I did. Or, I voted for as close to that as I could. It just came from the Republicans this time.
Those bullet points are equally as agreeable as they would be difficult (if not impossible) for the Democrats to implement at any level. I'll give my analysis of a few, going from most likely to least likely:
"Degrowth is the worst idea on the left since Communism. Ordinary voters want abundance: more stuff, more opportunity, cheaper prices, nicer, more comfortable lives. The only way to provide this is with more growth, not less."
I think literal degrowth is a very fringe idea within the Democratic party coalition. They aren't opposed to growth for its own sake, but definitely don't have the temperament to implement growth favorable policies outside of the growth that counts from government spending.
"National economic development should prioritize the “left-behind” areas of the country. The New Deal under Franklin Roosevelt did this and we can do it today. “Trickle-down” economics from rich metropolitan areas is not working."
Democrats have generally been better on this type of thing until they became a fringe party that's non-existent outside of deep blue metro areas. That said, anything with government spending involved will not get opposed so I give this a reasonable chance. That said, the results are likely to be like the CA high speed rail project where nothing actually gets built because.....
"We need to make it much easier to build things, from housing to transmission lines to nuclear reactors. That cannot happen without serious regulatory and permitting reform."
Something like this is 100% impossible to implement with Democrats. If there's one client class the Democrats are beholden to, it's those whose livelihoods depend on making things as obtuse, cumbersome, expensive, and sclerotic as possible for anyone that wants to build.