Right, it's a choice to build this coalition. I agree that those voters are not right now conditioned to believe that a better world is possible, but I believe the job of political leaders is to show people the way to a better world instead of capitulating to their worst instincts.
I think it's partially a choice made from pragmatism and the reality of how the parties are currently realigning. If the Dems could rely on a mass of progressive voters focused specifically on class issues and that was a coalition that would be the most likely to win, they would probably do it!
I feel that a lot of the time, and I'm not trying to knock you personally, people ascribe too much power to the party apparatus and not enough to the actual voters who influence the party apparatus's strategies for winning elections. I wish there were a bunch of progressives ready to vote en masse for all the stuff I want like universal Medicare, fully-paid family leave, nationalization of the drug industry, nationalization of the telecoms, the breakup of Amazon, etc., but there simply are not.
I mentioned Jeremy Corbyn because his Labour party couldn't win an election despite promising an economically superior approach to revitalizing the UK than Boris Johnson did. Outside of the fact that he, like BoJo, supported Brexit, he was better in every way and by every metric regarding economic programs. Yet, he didn't beat Theresa May and then got washed by BoJo. This should be instructive as to why...
This doesn't make strategic sense. The best, most strategic time to push left and create a strong progressive agenda is when the only alternative is a highly unpalatable right-wing extremist who has alienated the center. Those voters are never going to be more comfortable with voting Dem than right now, and we're squandering that opportunity by moderating instead of pushing. "Oh, you're uncomfortable with universal healthcare? Well you don't have a choice because the alternative is a fascist who wants to end democracy." would be the argument of a party who actually wanted universal healthcare and aren't in thrall to private insurance, but...
...it actually makes perfect strategic sense to be pragmatic and to inch forward with what you offer to the coalition of voters that you are forging because it's the most likely one to win you elections so that you can actually maybe do something that is economically progressive rather than promising the most you can and doing nothing because it lost you the election.
Again, in the UK, people looked at Corbyn saying similar things: "If you are uncomfortable with free high-speed internet for everyone in the UK, you don't have a choice because the alternative is a guy like Boris Johnson who will continue to transgress our political system and dump waste into your water, etc." Did that work? No, because those voters are quick to call "high-speed internet/Medicare for everyone" and "fascist/true oligarch" as equally extreme and then vote for the conservative or not vote at all.
I feel what you're saying. In theory, it makes sense. In practice, people will sit out or just vote the party they're comfortable voting. Do I like this? No. Do I accept that it is what it is and that this sort of political acculturation is deep-seeded in a lot of these voters? I have to; that's the world I live in.
That's my perspective, but we can agree to disagree.
www.freep.com
