Feb 4th 2019

As the 2020 Presidential Contest Begins, Democrats Need to Refocus

by James J. Zogby

Dr. James J. Zogby is the President of the Arab American Institute

 

We’re off to the races - the 2020 presidential races, that is. Since the beginning of the year, at regular intervals, new candidates have been coming forward to announce their intention to compete for the presidency. Some are interesting and/or exciting, while others frankly leave me scratching my head and asking “What are they doing? How on earth do they think they’re going to be elected?”      

While reading reports on the proposed strategies and “visions” of these fledgling presidential aspirants, I have been struck by two quotes that are important because they define two fundamentally flawed approaches to politics. Both quotes are only half right, and both are recipes for defeat.  

The first of them came from Howard Schultz, the billionaire founder of the Starbucks coffee empire. He is exploring running for president as an independent. Schultz has described his political philosophy as being “socially liberal and fiscally conservative.” This formula is the one that has been adopted by so-called “centrists” - moderate Democrats and liberal Republicans. They have embraced it with such conviction that it has become, for some, the accepted wisdom of what's needed to fix American politics. The problem with this “wisdom", however, is that it isn't wise at all. It doesn’t work and it fails to consider the aspirations of millions of hard working Americans - the very voters who are supposed to be the intended audience of this centrist message. 

Two decades ago, working with polling conducted by my brother, John Zogby, I wrote "What Ethnic Americans Really Think," a study of the attitudes and voting behaviors of white ethnic Americans. The groups we initially covered were the communities of European-Mediterranean immigrants and their descendants who, for decades, have been dominant in the Mid-Atlantic and Midwestern states.

What we found was that their views on a range of political and social issues were the exact opposite of what the centrists believed them to be. Our study found that these ethnic voters were proud of their heritage and their traditions. They believed in supporting their families and communities, and in the values of hard work and playing by the rules. At the same time, they saw government as playing an essential role in providing for the common good. They were deeply committed to providing quality education for all, strengthening Social Security and Medicare, protecting the environment, imposing stricter gun control, and support for the rights of organized labor. The bottom line was that these voters were socially traditional and fiscally liberal.

And when we compared the attitudes of these white ethnic voters with Black and Latino voters - we found that they closely matched one another. The point was that most Americans want the same things for their families and communities (good paying jobs, quality education, health care, and a safe and secure environment) and they see the role of government as playing a positive, not negative, role in realizing these goals.   

The second quote came from a senior advisor to one of the Democrats who recently announced their candidacy to run in the presidential primary. The advisor described their campaign's strategy as focusing on "base Democratic voters." Now while a primary, by definition, is for Democratic voters, Democrats have, for too long now, made the mistake of shaping their message and narrowly targeting their efforts on what they defined as their "base" - which has included: minority communities, educated women, and young voters. 

This worked for Obama in 2008 and 2012 and it was a key factor in Doug Jones' successful 2017 senate race in very Republican Alabama. But as an overall strategy this approach of focusing on some groups, while excluding others, is a recipe for disaster. 

I had an argument about this very issue at a Democratic Party meeting shortly after Democrats had suffered major loses in the 2014 congressional elections. At that meeting, the party's pollster/strategist presented his analysis of the election insisting that the strategy of targeting only "base voters" wasn't the reason for the loss. With slides full of tables and graphs he demonstrated that indeed, Democrats had won the Black vote, the Latino vote, the youth and educated women vote, but he concluded "we just didn't win enough of them." His solution was that "in the future, we need to expend greater resources going after 'our' voters."

At that point, I strenuously objected, saying that Democrats also needed to have a message and a strategy to win the support of other voters. I noted, especially, voters from European-Mediterranean ancestry who had been Democrats a few decades ago but had since left the party - primarily because the party stopped speaking to them. The pollster/strategist countered "why should we throw money away going after voters who are never going to support us."

That attitude, I responded, is why Democrats had lost control of governorships and legislatures in the Midwest. I said that with this attitude Democrats: were being as divisive as Republicans; were abandoning and betraying groups of voters that needed our support and policies; and would never be able to win a decisive enough majority to effectively govern. With this, the debate ended.

As I noted at the outset, both quotes were one-half correct. It's important to be inclusive and protective of the rights of all - if that's what Schultz meant by being "socially liberal." But coupling that with being fiscally conservative means crippling the very government that provides for equal opportunity, equal access to vital services, and the safety net that lifts up those who need a helping hand. Voters get that - those calling themselves "centrists" don't.

And while it's important for Democrats to focus resources on voters who have been faithful supporters, this should not be at the exclusion of reaching out to other groups of voters who need to be brought into the Democrats’ fold. Politics should be about adding, not subtracting. 

In 2016, Trump took advantage of this half-right approach to politics. Yes, he ran a racist campaign that attracted support from white supremacists, but he also preyed on the resentment of white voters who felt ignored/betrayed by Democrats who had a message for everyone but them. Trump coupled his "courting" with fear and even hatred of the "other." And he replaced centrism with populism. While with a wink and a nod at the GOP establishment he made it clear that he would cut taxes and government regulations (that protected the environment, health, safety, etc.), he promised middle class voters the moon - great health care for all, good jobs for everyone, and making America respected in the world.             

For Democrats to win, they need to be more than anti-Trump. They will need to have a message that speaks to the aspirations of all voters and a strategy that actively courts them, as well.

Browse articles by author

More Current Affairs

Feb 11th 2019
The first step to defending Europe from its enemies, both internal and external, is to recognize the magnitude of the threat they present. The second is to awaken the sleeping pro-European majority and mobilize it to defend the values on which the EU was founded. Otherwise, the dream of a united Europe could become the nightmare of the twenty-first century.
Feb 7th 2019
Watching a sophisticated democratic society knowingly walk into a predictable and avoidable national disaster is a rare and alarming experience. Most British politicians are well aware that leaving the European Union with no agreement on the post-Brexit relationship will cause enormous damage to their country. They are not sleepwalking into the abyss; their eyes are wide open. A minority of deluded ideologues doesn’t mind the prospect of Britain crashing out of the EU with no deal. A few chauvinist dreamers on the right, egged on by sections of the press, believe that the bulldog spirit of Dunkirk will overcome early setbacks and Great Britain will soon rule the waves again as a great quasi-imperial power, albeit without an empire. Neo-Trotskyists on the left, including Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the main opposition Labour Party, seem to think that catastrophe will spur the British people to demand true socialism at last.
Feb 4th 2019
We’re off to the races - the 2020 presidential races, that is. Since the beginning of the year, at regular intervals, new candidates have been coming forward to announce their intention to compete for the presidency. Some are interesting and/or exciting, while others frankly leave me scratching my head and asking “What are they doing? How on earth do they think they’re going to be elected?”      
Jan 29th 2019
Extract: "As it happens, on that Friday night when Trump buckled, I was at a restaurant where Pelosi and her husband, Paul, were dining with another couple. When the House Speaker left her table, customers and staff alike applauded her. A waitress standing beside me was nearly in tears. She choked out, “We need someone who will fight for us.” "
Jan 28th 2019
Recognizing that opinion in Parliament is moving strongly against leaving the EU on the terms proposed by May, with a growing number of members even in favor of a second referendum to test whether we should leave at all, some right-wingers have flirted with the idea of trying to close down the House of Commons for a time. They want the government to be able to get its own way without any democratic opposition. It is a sign of their desperation to get Britain out of the EU whatever the constitutional or economic cost. Is May prepared to get to grips with this? If she runs away from the task, despite growing Parliamentary unease about the path we are on, Britain is in big trouble.
Jan 25th 2019
At the end of last year, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia had completed final testing of an “invincible” new hypersonic nuclear-capable missile, the “Avangard,” calling it “the best New Year gift” for his country. With Putin seeming to up the ante on his increasingly frequent doomsday rhetoric, should the world be bracing itself for a nuclear conflict?................In recent months, popular support for Putin in Russia has declined sharply, with his approval rating falling from over 76% to 66% in the second half of last year. At the same time, a kind of neo-medieval thinking, focused on the restoration of autocratic monarchy and the supremacy of the Orthodox Church, has been gaining prominence in Russia. Putin’s fire-and-brimstone rhetoric may actually reflect the mindset of these fundamentalists, who view nukes as a “practical solution” to the world’s problems.
Jan 24th 2019
Over the past three decades I wrote more than two hundred articles about Israel, envisioning it to be a democratic state, independent and free, a champion of human rights, a force of unity for world Jewry, united in its citizenry, admired by its friends, envied by its detractors, and above all at peace with the Arab states and especially with the Palestinians. My vision about Israel was founded on my deep sense of the Jews’ turbulent and tragic history and their yearning for a home of their own in which to live in peace and security. As the years went by, I became increasingly disillusioned with Israel’s endemic political disunity, its inability to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians, the growing public complacency, the loss of the country’s unity of purpose, and the abandonment of its moral responsibility.
Jan 22nd 2019
China’s strategy for economic growth has been a work in progress since Deng Xiaoping launched the country’s “reform and opening up” in 1978. While the last 40 years of reform have been far from error-free, the government has displayed a willingness to adapt, as well as a capacity for navigating complex transitions, supported by a healthy internal policy debate. But how is China’s development model likely to evolve in the future, as external conditions pose new challenges to economic growth? A defining feature of China’s four decades of reform has been the state’s evolving role in the economy, about which there is still significant domestic disagreement. Some argue that the state – and, by extension, the Communist Party of China (CPC) – must retain a prominent role, in order to uphold the social stability needed to sustain economic development. Others claim that spurring the innovation needed to reach high-income status requires the state to be less like a market participant and more like a referee, regulator, and arbiter of economic and social priorities.
Jan 16th 2019
Consumer studies academics have been picking up on changing habits for a number of years. This includes an increased ambivalence towards consumption itself: people are buying less often and less overall. This is particularly true in the clothing industry, where research shows that millenials are especially unforthcoming – even after you factor in the shift to online retail. A lack of bricks and mortar did not, for instance, prevent online fashion retailer Asos from shocking the City with a profit warning shortly before Christmas. The American car industry is another harbinger of generational change: sales are stalling because younger people seem less interested in ownership. The average age of a new car buyer in the US was 50 in 2015. Or to give one more example, witness Apple’s recent trading problems. People are not only opting for cheaper smartphones, but they are keeping them for longer. If the world’s first company to pass the trillion dollar value mark is showing signs of struggling, we ought to take note.
Jan 15th 2019
[Eurozone] trades mainly within itself, re-invests its own savings, and doesn’t rely on large transfers into or out of other regions. So if another financial or commercial shock sends the rest of the world running backwards, the unloved single currency area may defy gravity as stubbornly as it resists reform.
Jan 11th 2019
Nine years ago, Britain generated nearly 75% of its electricity using natural gas and coal. In 2018, this dropped to under 45% – a remarkable transition away from fossil fuels in under a decade.:
Jan 10th 2019
What would have to happen for this to be a tranquil year economically, financially, and politically? Answer: a short list of threats to stability would have to be averted.
Jan 9th 2019
In the past, the US, despite all its own flaws and criminal conflicts, still stood as a force for good. An ideal of American openness and democracy was still worthy of admiration. At the same time, again as in the case of Western Europe, dependence on US military protection has had a less positive affect. It made Japan into a kind of vassal state; whatever the Americans wanted, Japan ends up having to do. This can have an infantilizing effect on politics. In the age of Trump, America is no longer so dependable. This might at least help to concentrate Japanese minds on how to get on in the world without the Americans. But the US has also ceased to be a model of freedom and openness. On the contrary, it has become an example of narrow nationalism, xenophobia, and isolationism. Japanese nationalists need no encouragement to follow this model. If they do so, Trump certainly will not stand in their way. They will echo the worst aspects of contemporary America – and throw away the best of what the US once had to offer.
Jan 8th 2019
Swedish academic Hans Rosling has identified a worrying trend: not only do many people across advanced economies have no idea that the world is becoming a much better place, but they actually even think the opposite. This is no wonder, when the news focuses on reporting catastrophes, terrorist attacks, wars and famines. Who wants to hear about the fact that every day some 200,000 people around the world are lifted above the US$2-a-day poverty line? Or that more than 300,000 people a day get access to electricity and clean water for the first time every day? These stories of people in low-income countries simply doesn’t make for exciting news coverage. But, as Rosling pointed out in his book Factfulness, it’s important to put all the bad news in perspective.
Jan 3rd 2019
If hardline Brexiteers aren’t willing to do what it takes to maintain a frictionless border with the EU in Ireland, they need to acknowledge the likely consequences. Northern Ireland will then want to choose, in a referendum, whether to remain in the UK or to unify with the Republic of Ireland, an EU member.........Such a step would be allowed under the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which ended the civil war and included a promise from the UK, Ireland, and the EU to keep regulations aligned across Ireland. Indeed, that deal leaves open the possibility of a reunified Ireland, if majorities in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland decide, by referendum, that that is what they want. In 2016, Northern Ireland voted by a clear margin of 56%-44% to remain in the EU. Though the minority Conservative government is being propped up by the ten MPs representing Northern Ireland’s pro-Brexit Democratic Unionist Party, an even larger majority of Northern Irish voters would probably choose the EU today..........Last June, when asked about business leaders’ fears over Brexit, Johnson infamously declared, “Fuck business.” If he were honest, he would apply the same crude dismissiveness to Northern Ireland and Scotland. At least then it would be clear where the Brexiteers actually stand.
Jan 3rd 2019

Many years ago, I came across an pre-Islamic Arabic poem describing a camel running across the desert. Suddenly, the camel freezes in mid-stride.

Dec 28th 2018
Extract: "..........the eruption of the Yellow Vest protests [in France] was less about the fuel tax than what its introduction represented: the government’s indifference to the plight of the middle class outside France’s largest urban centers. With job and income polarization having increased across all developed economies in recent decades, the unrest in France should serve as a wake-up call to others............To be sure, France, like a number of other European countries, has its share of impediments to growth and employment, such as those rooted in the structure and regulation of labor markets. But any effort to address these issues must be coupled with measures that mitigate and eventually reverse the job and income polarization that has been fueling popular discontent and political instability."
Dec 27th 2018
A fog of political uncertainty hangs over Britain after Christmas. Only four things seem clear. First, the Conservative Party will have growing difficulty accommodating its fanatical English nationalist wing. Second, to save the UK from disaster, Parliament will have to get a grip on the process. Third, life outside the EU will, in any case, leave Britain poorer and less influential in the world. And, lastly, whatever the outcome, Brexit will be a divisive issue for years to come. The Brexiteers lied. The costs of leaving the EU were always destined to outweigh the benefits. Alas, the responsible, imaginative, and inclusive political leadership needed to minimize the damage is nowhere in sight.
Dec 19th 2018
Over the centuries, Jews have been blamed for all sorts of ills in Christian and Muslim societies, from the Great Plague of the fourteenth century to the financial crashes of modern times. In 1903, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, produced by Imperial Russia’s secret police, “exposed” a diabolical Jewish plot to achieve world domination by promoting liberalism – and became a pretext for anti-Semitism in Europe. These narratives endure to this day, only now they are being projected onto a single Jew: George Soros............A disciple of the philosopher Karl Popper, Soros has promoted open societies as the ultimate guarantee of freedom from tyranny and religious or ideological indoctrination.....
Dec 17th 2018
Theresa May has survived a vote of no confidence in her leadership but to quote the prime minister: “Nothing has changed.” The Conservative Party remains just as divided as it was before. While divisions over Europe have been very prominent recently, they have been a thorn in the side of the party leadership for many years now. That said, looking at the situation today it’s hard to imagine how these rival ideologies have managed to coexist within the same party for so long.