A recent New York Times editorial gave me lots to ponder, blowing up a couple of my theories in the process. The title of the piece, “The Partisans Are Wrong: Moving to the Center Is the Way to Win,” caught my eye because it contradicted my theory that if the Democrats wanted to win maybe they had to move away from the centre.
I had noticed that as the Republicans moved further and further to he right, eventually into fascist territory, pundits were saying they had gone too far, leaving the electorate behind. But here they are, controlling all three branches of government. It seemed to me that the Democrats might be wise to copy the strategy, moving further left, as far perhaps as social democrats such as Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the new left-wing star Zohran Mamdani, next mayor of New York City.
The Times was saying the opposite—to win, move to the centre. And they had done their research. For example, they looked at all the close House races in the last election and found, as expected, that generally Democrats won in states that Harris won, and Republicans in states that Trump won. In 16 cases where the opposite occurred, where Democrats won in a Trump state and Republicans in a Harris state, the winners were all moderates.
The editorial then went on to blow up another of my theories. I thought that perhaps the Democrats had concentrated too much on social and cultural issues and that the winning approach could be going softer on those and harder on economic issues. But the editorial suggested that is only partly right.
It’s important to note just what The Times believes moderation now is. It isn’t about protecting the status quo. “It is more combative and populist. It tends to be left of centre on economics and right of centre on social issues (with abortion being an exception).”
I made particular note of the “combative and populist” as this very much describes our very own Pierre Poilievre. He didn’t lead his Conservatives to victory, but he led them to their highest share of the popular vote in almost 40 years. He did this in part by pulling working class voters away from the NDP. His approach was screw this woke stuff, elect us and we’ll get tough on immigration and crime, and we’ll make sure you get good jobs and your kids will be able to afford a house. Apparently it was just what many wanted to hear. And echoed what the Times said about “left of centre on economics and right of centre on social issues.”
He’s no moderate but is it possible nonetheless that the NDP could learn something from Pierre? Essentially he was endorsing populist views on both cultural and economic issues. The NDP is always strong on the latter, but woke on the former. They can’t trash the woke stuff as Poilievre does, but they can be more tolerant of populist views.
I believe two core principles define a social democrat: every person deserves to live a life of dignity and the economy must be in the service of the people.
Do the positions the NDP holds on issues unrelated or only weakly related to those principles have to be exclusive? That is, if one disagrees with the party’s position on one or more of such issues are they ineligible for party membership?
If, for instance, one is a Catholic and accepts the faith’s decree that abortion is wrong, does that preclude them from membership because the party’s position is pro-abortion? How about gay marriage? Or gun rights?
If all those who hold one or more opinions contrary to the party’s position, the market for recruiting members, or gaining supporters for that matter, is drastically reduced.
This was the gist of The Times editorial. To win elections, the Democrats have to vigorously address working Americans’ economic concerns while at the same time recognizing that many have non-woke views on abortion, gay rights, gun laws and other issues. Successful candidates appreciate that and possibly even hold similar positions on those issues.
The NDP might be well-advised to adopt such a policy. To be a member, one would be required to support the core principles, but allowed to disagree on other positions. After all, a worker standing on the picket line doesn’t give a shit if the brother or sister next to him believes in gay marriage.
Anyone committed to the core beliefs could oppose gay marriage or abortion or strict gun laws and still be offered membership. They could debate the non-exclusive issues over a coffee with their fellow party members.
And the party could welcome candidates who shared an un-woke view or two with their potential constituents. A party leader with a populist touch couldn’t hurt either.
All the candidates in the current leadership race should be considered with this in mind. The party may well benefit from a bigger tent.