Excellent, important piece. Discouraging, because extremely well argued. (I was glad you didn't try to morph it into something about the importance of creating additional Parties: this problem is largely--if not wholly--other, I think.) Anyhow, it's the best thing of yours that I have read to date. Thanks.
Lee, I think I have more contact with working class people than most academics and while your third point about Democrats neglecting to make an argument about morality may be accurate, I think you overlook the fact that the Republicans ARE making a moral argument. Democrats tend to ignore the question of deservingness. Especially among older working-class people there is a belief that government support should only go to those who deserve it: If you are an able-bodied person and not working, you don’t deserve benefits; ditto if you are in the country illegally. Thus, if Republicans claim that only such people will be kicked off Medicaid, that’s fine for many people. Closure of health clinics and rural hospitals would be a more effective counter-argument.
Although not relevant now, sometime in the future we’re going to have the same argument when it comes to reforming social security. People I know cite examples of others they know who are gaming social security disability—able-bodied people who can do as well getting disability as working low-paying jobs. When Republicans go after social security one of their defenses will be that they’re only going after lazy people who should be working.
Really good points, and I agree with everything you wrote. I'm a lifelong Democrat, and not an academic, so my vantage point might be limited, but I think the party has suffered immensely due to its stance on immigration. I'd even say that this one issue explains so much of how we got to this moment, and why the bill will have limited backlash.
Over the last decade, immigration has arguably become the most salient issue in the US, but Democrats have only shifted in the opposite direction of public opinion. And sadly, they've been willing to lose elections for it, rather than even comtemplate returning to their Obama-era position, which was that some deportations are necessary.
I agree. Moral appeals like Mr. Drutman advocates can be a tin ear when the country is 16% foreign-born. In the UK many have rallied around the idea of getting annual net migration down to 100,000. Relative to the population, in the US that would be 500,000. If Democrats could get on board with creating & enforcing a reduction in annual net migration to 500,000, they could find common ground with those whose attitude about immigration is less. From there immigration's salience could decrease & more focus could go toward dignity and decency on things like Medicaid.
Great article. Thanks for pulling together a rationale that makes sense and for clarifying some vague gut feelings that I couldn’t express/define. This will be controversial to Democrats, but some of the strongest arguments I heard during this fight were references to moral, Biblical scripture. I think a moral message resonates with a lot of Americans, but it doesn’t have to be Christian-based. “Love thy neighbor, no exceptions” is a universal teaching across many religions and cultures. I’m not pushing for one religious teaching over another, but am agreeing with your point that moral arguments can be persuasive. I’ve been thinking lately that we need an MLK-type figure in this moment whom we can rally around. Beyond his charisma and eloquence, his aspirational moral messaging inspired us to be better people and a better nation.
Really good point, Ann. Andy Beshear, who might run for president in 2028, invokes morality in a way that very few other Democrats do. I've been a firm believer for months now that he could be one of our strongest potential nominees.
I don’t think I there’s much to figure out. An undereducated populace (most Americans read on a 6th grade level) complained that inflation was too high and worried about excessive immigration, and we had an incumbent (Biden) who was unfortunately too old to articulate his case, and then had to be swapped out for someone voters barely new at the last minute. So they voted for the criminal who promised them cheaper stuff. Poll after poll shows this to be the case.
Ideology and policy have little to do with anything - it’s all about telling people what they want to hear.
As for Republicans not paying a political price - tell that to JD Vance, who’s gonna have to campaign when these Medicaid cuts take place and rural hospitals close.
'Dignity and decency' is not a master narrative, it is a slogan, and it sounds just like what Democrats have been trying to sell themselves with for the past decade. Thank you for thinking and writing about this, I just think we need something way beyond a suggestion to do the bare minimum of being an okay person if we want the current lunacy to end.
You are getting closer to the issues that are harming us. Human traits that are easy to exploit (if you don’t mind the criminality of it). You hit the nail on the head regarding status. Who cares they will never truly be a member of this good ol’ boys club, just let them think they are and they will protect you. Too many people are too stupid to vote. I say this because I have been a poll worker and have seen Idaho’s R party send mailers of who to vote for (the entire slate). They take it with them to the polls and that’s how they vote.
Excellent, important piece. Discouraging, because extremely well argued. (I was glad you didn't try to morph it into something about the importance of creating additional Parties: this problem is largely--if not wholly--other, I think.) Anyhow, it's the best thing of yours that I have read to date. Thanks.
Lee, I think I have more contact with working class people than most academics and while your third point about Democrats neglecting to make an argument about morality may be accurate, I think you overlook the fact that the Republicans ARE making a moral argument. Democrats tend to ignore the question of deservingness. Especially among older working-class people there is a belief that government support should only go to those who deserve it: If you are an able-bodied person and not working, you don’t deserve benefits; ditto if you are in the country illegally. Thus, if Republicans claim that only such people will be kicked off Medicaid, that’s fine for many people. Closure of health clinics and rural hospitals would be a more effective counter-argument.
Although not relevant now, sometime in the future we’re going to have the same argument when it comes to reforming social security. People I know cite examples of others they know who are gaming social security disability—able-bodied people who can do as well getting disability as working low-paying jobs. When Republicans go after social security one of their defenses will be that they’re only going after lazy people who should be working.
Really good points, and I agree with everything you wrote. I'm a lifelong Democrat, and not an academic, so my vantage point might be limited, but I think the party has suffered immensely due to its stance on immigration. I'd even say that this one issue explains so much of how we got to this moment, and why the bill will have limited backlash.
Over the last decade, immigration has arguably become the most salient issue in the US, but Democrats have only shifted in the opposite direction of public opinion. And sadly, they've been willing to lose elections for it, rather than even comtemplate returning to their Obama-era position, which was that some deportations are necessary.
I agree. Moral appeals like Mr. Drutman advocates can be a tin ear when the country is 16% foreign-born. In the UK many have rallied around the idea of getting annual net migration down to 100,000. Relative to the population, in the US that would be 500,000. If Democrats could get on board with creating & enforcing a reduction in annual net migration to 500,000, they could find common ground with those whose attitude about immigration is less. From there immigration's salience could decrease & more focus could go toward dignity and decency on things like Medicaid.
Great article. Thanks for pulling together a rationale that makes sense and for clarifying some vague gut feelings that I couldn’t express/define. This will be controversial to Democrats, but some of the strongest arguments I heard during this fight were references to moral, Biblical scripture. I think a moral message resonates with a lot of Americans, but it doesn’t have to be Christian-based. “Love thy neighbor, no exceptions” is a universal teaching across many religions and cultures. I’m not pushing for one religious teaching over another, but am agreeing with your point that moral arguments can be persuasive. I’ve been thinking lately that we need an MLK-type figure in this moment whom we can rally around. Beyond his charisma and eloquence, his aspirational moral messaging inspired us to be better people and a better nation.
Really good point, Ann. Andy Beshear, who might run for president in 2028, invokes morality in a way that very few other Democrats do. I've been a firm believer for months now that he could be one of our strongest potential nominees.
I live in a neighboring state and have been impressed with his governance in that red state. I will pay closer attention to his messaging. Thanks!
I don’t think I there’s much to figure out. An undereducated populace (most Americans read on a 6th grade level) complained that inflation was too high and worried about excessive immigration, and we had an incumbent (Biden) who was unfortunately too old to articulate his case, and then had to be swapped out for someone voters barely new at the last minute. So they voted for the criminal who promised them cheaper stuff. Poll after poll shows this to be the case.
Ideology and policy have little to do with anything - it’s all about telling people what they want to hear.
As for Republicans not paying a political price - tell that to JD Vance, who’s gonna have to campaign when these Medicaid cuts take place and rural hospitals close.
'Dignity and decency' is not a master narrative, it is a slogan, and it sounds just like what Democrats have been trying to sell themselves with for the past decade. Thank you for thinking and writing about this, I just think we need something way beyond a suggestion to do the bare minimum of being an okay person if we want the current lunacy to end.
You are getting closer to the issues that are harming us. Human traits that are easy to exploit (if you don’t mind the criminality of it). You hit the nail on the head regarding status. Who cares they will never truly be a member of this good ol’ boys club, just let them think they are and they will protect you. Too many people are too stupid to vote. I say this because I have been a poll worker and have seen Idaho’s R party send mailers of who to vote for (the entire slate). They take it with them to the polls and that’s how they vote.