Liberalism (US Politics)

Subterms

    Latest story

    113 Shares99 Views

    The Seeds of Democratic Revival Have Already Been Sown

    by

    Now is an agonizing time for Democrats. Some days are dominated by feelings of despair, others by recriminations. But in fact the Democratic Party is on the cusp of a renaissance if it plays its cards right.The claim that a revival may be near at hand might seem bizarre, given that the party is at its weakest point in at least half a century. It is all but shut out of power in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government. Its popularity is at a record low, according to a report by Third Way, a center-left think tank and advocacy organization. Since 2022, according to Gallup, more Americans identify and lean Republican than Democratic, the first time that has been true since 1991. Leading figures in the Democratic Party, such as Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, call the Democratic brand “toxic.” Democratic support has collapsed among non-college-educated voters, who make up some 64 percent of electorate. Voters are leaving blue states for red ones. And if that were not enough, based on current demographic trends, blue states will lose up to a dozen electoral votes after the 2030 census.Despite this, Democrats have an opening. The Trump administration’s wall-to-wall incompetence, and the human suffering that is resulting from it, will become more and more obvious. Disenchantment with President Trump and his party is already spreading. But can Democrats exploit the opportunity?To help figure out an answer, we conducted written interviews with 19 Democrats, from progressives to centrists. They included officeholders, analysts, strategists and state party chairs chosen because they represent a range of views and experiences and have given careful thought to how the Democratic Party needs to change. We also plowed through a stack of white papers, articles and published interviews.These Democrats agree that attacking Mr. Trump is not sufficient; the party must make a new offer to Americans. They also agree on a main theme of that new offer: making the American dream affordable for the middle class and especially the working class. But Democrats across the ideological spectrum, not just on the party’s right flank, also recognize that their economic message will fall on deaf ears if they cannot re-enter the cultural mainstream and stop talking down to ordinary people.Rahm Emanuel, a former Democratic representative in Congress and mayor of Chicago who served as President Barack Obama’s chief of staff, was blunt: “If you’re outside the mainstream on culture, the public will never trust you enough to listen to your ideas on economic ‘kitchen table’ issues.”When It Comes to ‘Prosperity’, Republicans Have an Edge. But That Hasn’t Always Been True.“Which political party do you think will do a better job of keeping the country prosperous?”

    Source: GallupBy The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Elissa Slotkin Wants Democrats to Reclaim Their ‘Alpha Energy’

      by

      In a wide-ranging interview, the junior senator from Michigan took stock of her party’s deep-seated woes, warning Democrats not to be “so damn scared.”As Democrats battle over age, ideology and how to wrest back power, they increasingly agree on one idea: Their party needs an affirmative vision.That is where the consensus ends.So Senator Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat from Michigan, is trying to help her party fill in those details.Ms. Slotkin, who gave the Democratic response to President Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress in March, is delivering a series of speeches that are part candid diagnosis of her party’s problems, part policy prescription and part political pep talk, sometimes irritating more left-wing Democrats in the process.Last month, she laid out what she called her “economic war plan,” focused on rebuilding the middle class and slaughtering “some sacred cows” in the process.She is planning to give speeches about security and democracy later this year.“You cannot win a game, a war, anything, just by playing defense,” Ms. Slotkin said in an interview this week. “You can’t just point at Donald Trump every day and point out the bad things that he’s doing. You have to show a positive, affirmative vision of what you’re going to do if you’re in power.”In the half-hour interview, Ms. Slotkin discussed her party’s messaging problems, the new fault lines defining Democratic debates and the 2028 presidential race.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Mamdani Says He Will ‘Discourage’ the Term ‘Globalize the Intifada’

      by

      Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee in the race for mayor of New York City, moved to distance himself from comments that sparked outrage during the primary.Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, told an influential group of business leaders on Tuesday that he would not use the phrase “globalize the intifada,” which has been seen as a call to violence against Jews, and would “discourage” others from doing so, according to three people familiar with his comments.The phrase has been a rallying cry among opponents of the war in Gaza, and Mr. Mamdani, an ardent critic of Israel’s military operations, had refused to condemn its use during the Democratic primary race that he won in June.His comments came in a closed-door meeting with roughly 150 business executives at the offices of Tishman Speyer in Rockefeller Center. It was hosted by the Partnership for New York City, a consortium of members representing banks, law firms and corporations.Mr. Mamdani told the group that while many people used the term to express solidarity with Palestinians, some New Yorkers viewed it as a reference to violence against Israel, according to one of the people who were familiar with his comments.Just two weeks ago, shortly after his primary victory, Mr. Mamdani said in an interview on “Meet the Press” that the term was “not language that I use” but that “I don’t believe that the role of the mayor is to police speech.”Mr. Mamdani’s shifting language comes as his campaign moves from his stunning victory in the June primary to the general election in November, when he faces a fractured field of competitors including Mayor Eric Adams and former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, who are running as independents, and the Republican nominee, Curtis Sliwa.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats Are Getting Richer. It’s Not Helping.

      by

      There have been endless laments for the white working-class voters the Democratic Party lost over the past few decades, particularly during the 10 years of the Trump era. But detailed 2024 election analyses also make it clear that upper-income white voters have become a much more powerful force in the party than they ever were before. These upscale white voters are driving the transformation of the Democratic Party away from its role as the representative of working-class America and closer to its nascent incarnation as the party of the well-to-do.A detailed analysis of data compiled by the Cooperative Election Study shows that in 2024, 46.8 percent of white Kamala Harris voters had annual household incomes over $80,000, while 53.2 percent earned less than that. In fact, according to data analysis by Caroline Soler, a research analyst for the Cooperative Election Study, the single largest bloc of white Democratic voters in 2024 — 27.5 percent — had incomes of $120,000 or more.Along similar lines, Tom Wood, a political scientist at Ohio State University, provided The Times with figures from the American National Election Studies for 2020, the most recent year for which data is available. The numbers show that white voters in the 68th to 100th income percentiles — the top third — cast 49.05 percent of their ballots for Joe Biden and 50.95 for Donald Trump. White voters in the top 5 percent of the income distribution voted 52.9 percent for Biden and 47.1 percent for Trump.These figures stand in sharp contrast to election results as recent as those of 2008. Among white voters in the top third of the income distribution that year, John McCain, the Republican nominee, beat Barack Obama 67.1 percent to 32.9 percent.Frances Lee, a political scientist at Princeton, responded by email to my inquiries about this phenomenon: “An objective look at both party’s coalitions in the mass electorate would have to acknowledge that neither Republicans nor Democrats are the ‘party of the working class.’”Instead, Lee argued:Both parties are vulnerable to charges of elitism. Republicans really do push for tax cuts that benefit the wealthy. Democrats, meanwhile, take stances on social issues that appeal to socioeconomic elites.The underlying truth, Lee continued, “is that the major parties in the U.S. today are not primarily organized around a social-class cleavage.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Why Democrats Need Their Own Trump

      by

      We are more than 1,200 days away from the 2028 presidential election, but the Democratic presidential primary is already well underway. The likely candidates are fund-raising, hosting campaign rallies, starting podcasts and staking out ideological lanes.Candidates will try to carve out distinct political identities, but one challenge unites them all: Their party is historically unpopular. The Democratic Party’s favorability rating is 22 percentage points underwater — 60 percent of respondents view it unfavorably, 38 favorably. Apart from the waning days of Joe Biden’s presidency, that is by far the lowest it’s been during the more than 30 years Pew Research has collected data.The presidential hopefuls are likely to divide into two camps, moderates and progressives. But these paths misunderstand Democrats’ predicament and will fail to win over a meaningful majority in the long term. If the next Democratic nominee wants to build a majority coalition — one that doesn’t rely on Republicans running poor-quality candidates to eke out presidential wins and that doesn’t write off the Senate as a lost cause — the candidate should attack the Democratic Party itself and offer positions that outflank it from both the right and the left.It may seem like an audacious gambit, but a successful candidate has provided them a blueprint: Donald Trump.To be clear, the blueprint I refer to is not the one Mr. Trump has used to violate democratic norms and destabilize American institutions, but rather the one for resetting how Americans view a party and its leaders.In January 2013, at the time of Barack Obama’s second inauguration, Republicans were deeply unpopular. Conservative thought leaders like Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Karl Rove advocated comprehensive immigration reform as a pathway back to a majority. By the summer, the base’s backlash to the idea was itself so comprehensive that many of them were forced to retreat.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Mamdani and Lander Will Cross-Endorse Each Other in N.Y.C. Mayor’s Race

      by

      Zohran Mamdani and Brad Lander, the two leading progressive candidates in the race, hope their partnership will help them leverage the ranked-choice voting system to defeat Andrew M. Cuomo.Zohran Mamdani and Brad Lander, the leading progressive candidates in the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City, will cross-endorse each other on Friday, creating a late-stage partnership designed to help one of them surpass former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo in ranked-choice balloting.The candidates, who are second and third in the polls behind Mr. Cuomo, will encourage their supporters to rank them in the top two spots on their ballots. The city’s ranked-choice voting system allows primary voters to list up to five candidates in order of preference.If no candidate receives more than 50 percent of New Yorkers’ first-choice votes, ranked-choice tabulations will begin. When voters’ top choices are eliminated during that process, their support will get transferred to candidates who are lower on their ballots.The partnership, which is being announced one day before early voting begins, would effectively turn Mr. Mamdani, a state assemblyman, and Mr. Lander, the city comptroller, into something of a joint entry. They hope that one of them will eventually accumulate many of the other’s votes as a result.Mr. Mamdani, who has steadily risen in the polls and is running second behind Mr. Cuomo, said in a statement that at Thursday night’s debate, he and Mr. Lander had exposed Mr. Cuomo as “a relic of the broken politics of the past.”“I am proud to rank our principled and progressive comptroller No. 2 on my ballot because we are both fighting for a city every New Yorker can afford,” Mr. Mamdani said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Pope Francis and the End of the Imperial Papacy

      by

      Pope Francis, who passed to his reward on the morning after Easter at age 88, was a version of the liberal pope that many Catholics had earnestly desired all through the long reign of John Paul II and the shorter one of Benedict XVI — a man whose worldview was shaped and defined by the Second Vatican Council and whose pontificate sought a renewal of its revolution, a further great modernization of the Catholic Church.In one way, at least, he succeeded. For generations, modernizers lamented the outsize power of the papacy, the anachronism of a monarchical authority in a democratic age, the way the concept of papal infallibility froze Catholic debates even as the world rushed forward. In theory Francis shared those concerns, promising a more collegial and horizontally oriented church, more synodal, in the jargon of the Catholic bureaucracy. In practice he often used his power in the same way as his predecessors, to police and suppress deviations from his authority — except that this time the targets were dissenting conservatives and traditionalists instead of progressives and modernizers.But just by creating that novel form of conflict, in which Catholics who had been accustomed to being on the same side as the Vatican found themselves suddenly crosswise from papal authority, Francis helped to demystify his office’s authority and undermine its most imposing claims.That’s because the conservatives whose convictions he unsettled were the last believers in the imperial papacy, the custodians of infallibility’s mystique. And by stirring more of them to doubt and disobedience, he kicked away the last major prop supporting a strong papacy and left the office of St. Peter in the same position as most other 21st-century institutions: graced with power but lacking credibility, floated on charisma without underlying legitimacy, with its actions understood in terms of rewards for friends and punishments for enemies.Two rebellions, in particular, illustrate this shift. The first is the continuing resistance to the pope’s attempt to suppress, in the name of Catholic unity and the spirit of the Second Vatican Council, the faith’s traditional Latin Mass. After Vatican II in the late 1960s, when Pope Paul VI remade the church’s liturgy, he commanded enough deference that he was able to swiftly consign the Mass that every Catholic in the world had grown up with to the modern equivalent of catacombs — to church basements, hotel rooms and schismatic chapels.Whereas when Francis attempted a similar suppression, reversing the permissions granted by Benedict, only his most loyal bishops really went along, and the main effect was to stir resistance and complaint, garner new media attention for the old Latin Mass and increase traditionalism’s cachet among younger Catholics.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Working Families Party Endorses 4 Candidates in Strategy to Beat Cuomo

      by

      The progressive group backed Brad Lander, Zohran Mamdani, Adrienne Adams and Zellnor Myrie for mayor as part of a broader effort to defeat the former governor, who is leading in the polls.As New York City voters tilt slightly toward the center, the left-leaning Working Families Party hopes that a slate of four mayoral candidates will be better than the one moderate rival currently leading the polls, former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo.The party on Saturday voted to endorse a slate of four candidates for mayor: Zohran Mamdani, an assemblyman from Queens; Brad Lander, the city comptroller; Adrienne Adams, the speaker of the City Council; and Zellnor Myrie, a state senator from Brooklyn.Ana María Archila and Jasmine Gripper, co-directors of the New York Working Families Party, said in a statement that the city deserved a mayor who could “leave behind the scandal and corruption of the past and lead with integrity.”The four candidates “each have a record of fighting for working families, a vision to make New York City safe and affordable for all and the courage to stand up to Trump,” they added.The slate is the first of a two-part endorsement process that the party has embraced for the June 24 primary. In May, the group plans to throw its support behind a single candidate that its leaders believe is best positioned to defeat Mr. Cuomo.In the 2021 Democratic mayoral primary, the three candidates backed by the Working Families Party failed to make the final round under the city’s new ranked-choice voting system. This year, the group has adjusted its endorsement process in an effort to better leverage its influence.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 50 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats: Still Under Construction

      by

      More from our inbox:Domestic EnemiesNew housing under construction in Georgetown, Texas.Mike Osborne for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “There Is a Liberal Answer to the Trump-Musk Alliance,” by Ezra Klein (column, March 9):Mr. Klein gets some things right about government efficiency and some things absolutely wrong. I agree that Democrats should pursue policies of abundance rather than policies of constraint. But Democrats did make that argument repeatedly and provided real policy solutions — for example, an expanded child tax credit that reduced child poverty roughly by half within a two-year period.Mr. Klein underestimates the power of the media’s constantly hammering on the message of division and the false assumption that taking care of the poorest will disadvantage working- and middle-class white people. He also contrasts housing construction policy in California and Texas, blaming overregulation for California’s lack of progress in meeting needs. Earthquakes? Wildfires? Coastal erosion? Access to adequate water? Mr. Klein ignores those constraints. And has he been to Texas lately?I am from a large Texas family and lived in California for 40 years. “Accessible housing” in Texas has led to endless sprawl, long commutes, increasing air pollution alerts and limited access to amenities to improve the quality of life. With its diminishing investment in public goods like schools and parks, its poor family support and hostility to women and diverse people, and one of the most corrupt administrative and legislative governments in the United States, Texas is hardly a model.Terry L. AllisonMontrealTo the Editor:Ezra Klein suggests that “a politics of abundance” can defeat the “politics of scarcity” that fuels the fear driving people into the arms of authoritarians like Donald Trump. While I agree from a philosophical standpoint, I must ask: How can we pull that off in a world where more and more of our planet is becoming uninhabitable because of climate change?Climate change is at the root of most of the challenges we face today. Millions of people displaced by famine, fire or flood will move to the quickly dwindling parts of the planet that are habitable. People in these still habitable locations sense this at their deepest core, and thus the politics of scarcity are born — not from propaganda but from actual crisis.We cannot even begin to project any sense of “abundance” while this indisputable fact remains true. The only way to save not only our political representation but also our planet is to face this existential crisis squarely, so that maybe one day “abundance” becomes a word that we can use truthfully, and joyfully, once again.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More