The division line now in the Democratic Party is: Do you believe Trump is an existential threat in his second term and needs to be fought in a very different way? Or do you believe that Trump’s second term, like Trump’s first term, is bad but survivable if we just let things play out?Or this:
And I’m in Category 1. There are interesting different coalitions that have been built among elected Democrats, among people who on a lot of issues I don’t agree with, but who agree that what Trump is doing, particularly around democracy in our economy, is existential and needs to be approached differently.
I think there’s really two things that people who really want to be active can do that is meaningful. And one is make sure we bring awareness and focus to the president’s threat to democracy. Rallies, protests, events: When he tries to screw with election law or when he refuses to listen to the Supreme Court and their court orders, we should be putting a hot spotlight on that with protests, with education, op-eds. Visible and vocal.She cites the campaign to prevent the repeal of Obamacare in Donald Trump's first term.
And then the second place we can focus is on bringing the middle voters into the fight.
How did that happen? Well, the base of the Democratic Party used full throttle all of the vehicles they had open to them to educate the public that this man was trying to take away your health care, your right to being covered, even if you have a pre-existing condition, your kid on your health care until 26.That all sounds good to me.
And suddenly people who had never been political before were saying: Wait a minute, I don’t really like politics, but someone’s going to take away my health care? What are you talking about? That is what we need to do on the core things that Trump is now doing in his second term. We need the base to focus on educating people around what he’s doing to this economy, to their social security, to their health care and their V.A. benefits. And that is just as important as any rally to protect democracy. Both are important, but if you want to talk about following a model of change, turning the middle against Trump is where it’s at.
But while Slotkin wants angry activists and previously apolitical middle-of-the-roaders to work together, she also wants the left and the center of the Democratic Party to keep fighting each other:
I don’t think we can stand up to Trump in a credible, thoughtful, strategic way if we don’t own the mistakes we made in the last election that got us here...."If you don’t deal with the problems, then you can’t mount a united offense." Has Slotkin ever worked in an office? Any office drone knows that while it's certainly better to resolve problems you have with colleagues, sometimes you just have to work around them -- and a moment of crisis is not the time to stop working and air all your grievances.
If you don’t deal with the problems, then you can’t mount a united offense.
(I know Slotkin has worked in an office -- she was a CIA analyst and then worked at the Pentagon, and then in the White House under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. So you'd think she'd know that living with a certain amount of friction is inevitable.)
Democrats do not have to beat themselves up over an election in which they barely lost the popular vote despite a mid-campaign candidate switch, and in which they came within a few seats of winning the House. "We suck! Now join our protest!" is a terrible message.
Slotkin is focused on the voters who are resistant to Democrats. She says:
I live in a town called Holly, Mich. I’ve never won my town. I’ve never won my precinct; I’ve never won my neighbors.(She has that in common with Franklin Roosevelt, who never won his county in four presidential elections.)
I actually agree with her about the importance of inflation in 2024, although I could do without the elite-bashing:
... [Democrats] spent a good year plus after the pandemic explaining to people that the economy was not as bad as they thought. Saying things like: This Harvard economist says that G.D.P. is the highest, bah, bah, bah. I was going to punch someone if they quoted me one more Harvard economist when I could tell you with certainty that in my part of the world, people’s wages were not keeping pace with inflation. Period.Inflation had cooled by 2024, but I think it seemed like a solved problem if you had enough of an economic cushion to weather the inflation spike in the middle of Joe Biden's term. If you didn't, inflation still stung. That's not the fault of economists. Economists produce a lot of economic measurements. It's up to politicians to gauge the ones that are economically important and the ones that are politically important. It was up to Biden to have an instinct for why people felt bad when the economy seemed good. (My guess: super-high credit card interest rates.)
They just tried to tell everyone the economy was better than it was, and it made people feel stupid. And it completely ignored the fact that while maybe on a piece of paper in a spreadsheet in Boston, that was right in the aggregate. But for people who you were trying to talk to in the middle of the country, it was not accurate.
Like other centrist Democrats, Slotkin misstates the beliefs of the Democrats she criticizes:
... I think what ["woke" is] shorthand for — for a lot of people — is caring about social issues more than pocketbook issues. And I think what I saw happen in this last election is that people tried to say: The American people, especially of certain categories, care more about identity issues than they do about pocketbooks. And I think that that is just false.No Democratic candidate said that! Kamala Harris and Tim Walz certainly didn't say that. Among centrist Democrats, this is starting to seem like a Mandela effect. (The Mandela effect is a collective false memory created out of frequent repetition of a falsehood, like the mistaken recollection that Nelson Mandela died in prison. Centrist Democrats have said that the 2024 campaign was woke so often that they now seem to remember it that way.)
Early in the interview, Slotkin says, "Democrats are really good at analyzing policies and giving you the faculty lounge explanation of things." David Leonhardt seems puzzled after a while:
Leonhardt: ... I want to talk for a minute about Bernie Sanders, because I think for a long time Bernie Sanders has been trying to fashion a politics that is more based on class and the American dream, and less based on some of the identity issues that the faculty lounge progressives, as you say, have been pushing.In response to this, Slotkin has nothing:
And yet I also know you don’t agree with Bernie Sanders about everything.... I’m interested in your thoughts about what parts of Bernie and Bernie-ism the Democratic Party should retain and what parts it should look to reinvent.
Slotkin: I have no problem with — I think his central tenet, that wealth has been absolutely concentrated and moved from the middle class of, let’s say, the previous generation to the upper classes of American society, that’s not an opinion; that’s a factual statement that the middle class was much more powerful 30 years ago than it is today. And that’s a problem. I see that, frankly, as a national security issue. I just don’t think that the answer is socialism, and I think that even using that term confuses people.But "socialism," to Sanders, means a mixed economy, not an economy that rejects capitalism. He wants America to be Scandinavia, not the Soviet Union.
I think most people really believe that the system of capitalism is a positive one. It just often is abused by some of the wealthiest and most powerful. But not to scrap the whole system. And I say this as someone who comes from a family business. We were in the hot dog business; my great-grandfather came here at 13, didn’t speak the language and was able to start his own business that he gave to his kids and his grandkids. So I don’t think that the average American is looking for a fundamentally different system. They just want our system to work. So I don’t quibble with Bernie’s central analysis, but I don’t think the cure is socialism.
And there's the problem with Democrats like Slotkin: they worry that the party is losing working-class voters, and they say it's because Democrats don't focus enough on how the economy affects those voters -- but here's a guy who does focus on what the economy does to working people, and they reject him.
If you think you can save the Democratic Party, and your plan is to fight for working-class voters, you'd better have something to offer them. Sanders does. Does Slotkin?