FYI.

This story is over 5 years old.

Views My Own

Bernie's Revolution Won't Save the Democrats

To win in the midterms, the party will need more than just progressive populism.
Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images

In an op-ed in Tuesday's New York Times, Bernie Sanders made a case for how progressives can stop losing elections, building on the message he delivered at last week's "People's Summit" in Chicago, where he declared the current model and strategy of the Democratic Party "an absolute failure."

"Republicans now control almost two-thirds of governor's offices and have gained about 1,000 seats in state legislatures in the past nine years," Sanders writes. "If these results are not a clear manifestation of a failed political strategy, I don't know what is. For the sake of our country and the world, the Democratic Party, in a very fundamental way, must change direction."

Advertisement

The Democrats' recent defeats have been the source of internal and external debate since the party bottomed out in 2016. Given Sanders's unique ability to galvanize young people and energize the party's left wing, what he says carries real weight. His diagnosis? "Too many in our party cling to an overly cautious, centrist ideology. The party's main thrust must be to make politics relevant to those who have given up on democracy and bring millions of new voters into the political process."

Sanders goes on to list a host of issues where he believes Democrats must lead: single-payer healthcare. Progressive tax reform. Public investment in infrastructure. Combating fossil fuels and investing in sustainable energy. Making public colleges and universities tuition-free. More or less the platform that made him a credible primary challenger to Hillary Clinton, in other words.


Watch: What it's like to be a White House Staffer Who Needs a Lawyer


What goes unsaid is that this is an argument Sanders has largely won. The divide he apparently sees between progressive and centrist Democrats is not anywhere as wide as he's suggesting. Even on the more contentious of these issues, such as healthcare and college tuition, there is ample evidence that Democrats are moving to the left, at least in part because of Sanders's advocacy. The Democratic Party platform in 2016 was hailed as the most progressive ever by many, and there is little doubt that, especially under Trump, Democrats in general are feeling emboldened to seek out more populist policy solutions.

Advertisement

But it's one thing to celebrate the gains you've made and to encourage more of them, and quite another to attack those who don't subscribe to your agenda. If Sanders's insistence that Democrats need to embrace his version of progressivism implies that that is the only way to succeed in the 2018 midterm elections, then he is wrong, full stop.

Obviously, Democrats need to present an overarching vision to the American people. I have argued Democrats cannot simply oppose Trump and must seize this moment to explain what they are for. But no single approach will work everywhere. There are 435 House and 33 Senate seats up for grabs in 2018. Regional and local differences abound, and it will be incumbent upon Democrats to recognize the differences in these electorates and tailor their messages accordingly.

Related: Why Trump's Quiet Crusade Against Regulations Matters

Sanders's approach may work well for Democrats running in deep-blue districts in New York or California, and even perhaps for many in the Rust Belt where populism plays. But for many parts of the South and the West, a leftist agenda isn't likely to turn red or even purple districts blue. Economic populism is not a panacea that will automatically vault Democrats back to power—there many different types of Democrats, with many different values. Not everyone is mad as hell, even now. Sanders's criticism is likely to put off moderate voters, people who, like it or not, the party needs to win elections.

Advertisement

Drawing broad lessons from individual elections is a risky practice, but races this year show that progressive populism is hardly an easy route to victory. The Sanders-endorsed candidate in Montana lost to a man who body-slammed a reporter. In this week's primary for Virginia governor, the Establishment candidate, Lieutenant Governor Ralph Northam, easily beat Sanders's choice Tom Perriello in a race with a surprisingly high turnout. And centrist Jon Ossoff, who Sanders only reluctantly endorsed, is now ahead of his Republican rival for the special election in Georgia next week.

The last time Democrats took back the House, in 2006, it was with a decidedly big-tent approach. The party offered viable candidates in many purple and conservative districts who often didn't hold all the standard liberal beliefs. Interestingly enough, Sanders did seem to understand this need for nuance when he endorsed Heath Mello for mayor in Oklahoma despite Mello's imperfect record on abortion, something for which he got a lot of flak. But on the economic issues he holds most dear, Sanders seems less flexible.

Unyielding orthodoxy may scare off moderate voters, but it also serves to reinforce the suspicions other Democrats have of Sanders's most ardent supporters. These are the types who might react to any loss by the more progressive candidate in a Democratic primary as proof that the party "still doesn't get it," the people looking for one more reason to not vote (or vote third-party) in a general election. Indeed, many of these voters are already urging Bernie to start a new "People's Party."

But with Trump's plummeting poll numbers, the daily crises emanating from the White House, and the toxic policies Republicans are putting forth, Democrats seem poised to make big gains in the 2018 midterms. It seems unwise to put so much stress on what he feels divides internal division at a moment when Democrats should be seeking a united front.

Sanders deserves much credit for the energy and enthusiasm he has generated among people turned off by politicians' coddling of Wall Street and a government they feel doesn't speak to their needs. And the many progressives who are running primary challenges in an effort to push the party left shouldn't be dissuaded. "Big tent" isn't code for "centrist"—it means that left-wing and populist candidates are welcome too, wherever they can win.

The need to reach new voters is certainly important, but Democrats can't afford to gain these new voters at the expense of turning off those voters who are already showing up. Sanders's 2016 candidacy created a powerful movement, but even that movement can't retake Congress by itself. There is no one blueprint for Democrats to regain power. Progressivism and pragmatism are not mutually exclusive.

Eric Sasson is the author of Margins of Tolerance and the forthcoming novel Admissions. He is a regular contributor to the New Republic and GOOD magazine. Follow him on Twitter and visit his website.