The Democratic Party’s approval rating is at a 30-year-low, and Americans rated them less capable than the GOP at their ability to “manage the federal government effectively” or “bring about the changes this country needs.” A pretty damning indictment, considering the GOP is currently disassembling the government with a rusty hacksaw while wearing furry BDSM blindfolds.1
In the wake of running (and losing) a centrist presidential campaign side-by-side with the Cheneys, followed by a wave of interest in democratic socialists at the local level, liberal centrists are scrambling to prove that their ideology is still relevant and popular with voters. They suggest that candidates like Zohran Mamdani are “dangerous.” But…dangerous for whom?
Do Democrats have a messaging problem, or a message problem? Do Americans need more convincing, or might Democrats need better principles? If only there were an overwhelmingly popular Democratic candidate whose positions we could study!
Rather than step-ball-changing with the times, establishment Democrats are digging in their heels. Calls to rally behind Gavin Newsom are already rampant because, the thinking goes, “We need to unify the Left.” Instead of pushing for change, it’s time to fall in line and support yet another candidate who’s functionally indistinguishable from the last three so we can “save democracy” and “beat Trump” and “no, seriously, stop asking why we keep sending billions to Israel, your ~purity politics~ of drawing the line at genocide are annoying.”2
Today, we investigate the end of the so-called “liberal order.”
To say it’s been a bad year for Democrats would be an understatement. But not all Democrats. A democratic socialist was recently selected in an overwhelming electoral victory in the Democratic primary for New York City’s mayor after energizing more than 50,000 door knockers. One would think this type of organic support would excite the sclerotic Democratic establishment, right?!
Wrong. Kathy Hochul, the Democratic governor of New York, has already indicated she bravely plans to stand up for the marginalized ownership class and block what the people of New York City voted for to “mak[e] sure that people who create jobs will stay here so that we can have good-paying jobs.”3
It’s pretty wild that a politician in a party with a record-low approval rating feels emboldened enough to say this out loud (“Therapist in Chief” for the city’s elite is certainly one way to conceive of your role as a public servant). Mamdani, on the other hand, has a track record of going to extreme lengths to extract concessions from power on behalf of the working class. Scary!
It’d be easier to dismiss the power players in the Democratic Party snubbing Mamdani if he were the only candidate experiencing this, but Omar Fateh, who recently won the mayoral primary endorsement in Minneapolis, had his endorsement rescinded after his incumbent competition pointed to voting irregularities. Rather than simply conducting another vote, 28 Democrats made the bold creative choice in a closed-door meeting to (a) scrap it altogether, (b) prohibit the DFL from holding another vote, and (c) give the (losing) incumbent access to the voter rolls.
The incumbent in question, Jacob Frey, set a new record in 2024 for using his mayoral veto power to block woke city council resolutions like “a call for a Gaza ceasefire” and “more affordable housing” and “a minimum wage for ride share drivers.” Nice guy!
You can even listen to Minneapolis city council member say she’ll withhold $25,000 in donor checks unless the DFL reverses its endorsement of Fateh. Just checking in: Is this all part of “saving democracy,” or will we get to that once the democratic socialists stop winning?
As you can see, shenanigans are afoot. When the status quo is crumbling and your voters are clearly demonstrating an interest in something other than Republicans Lite Without Cool Hats Or Slurs (RLWCHOS), it’s time to double down on the decade-long core strategy that Liberalism Rocks, Actually, And Everything Will Be Fine Again If We Can Just Beat Donald Trump.
Enter: The Argument4, a new media company with $4mm in funding at a $20mm valuation recently launched on Substack by heavy hitters (majority former Atlantic staffers) like Derek Thompson, Matt Yglesias, and Jerusalem Demsas to “make a positive, combative case for liberalism through rigorous, persuasive journalism.”
References are made in the launch materials to the New Deal and Civil Rights eras as periods of exemplary liberal governance. But those were less examples of liberalism working well, and more instances of radical progressivism working well. Much of the New Deal platform mirrored the early 20th century Socialist Party’s platform. FDR adopted leftist causes, rhetoric, and even their leaders in order to retain power and “save capitalism” from the Great Depression.
And, of course, civil rights legislation was not a widely supported position with popular support due to Good Liberal Leadership, but the result of an often-violent Civil Rights movement fighting relentlessly for equal rights, with many Black leftists and radicals at the forefront.
Of course, in order to talk about “liberalism,” “neoliberalism,” and “leftism,” we have to define what we mean5 and what we’re critiquing specifically.
To understand the ways in which center-left liberalism subtly undermines the very progress the left claims to want, we’re analyzing three pieces that The Argument published in its first week: The imaginary war on American workers, Giving people money helped less than I thought it would6, and The case for staying on Twitter.
In short, much of what we consider Reasonable Liberal Governance today is better understood in the conservative tradition set forth by Reagan, Thatcher, etc., a fate that Ted Kennedy foresaw when he warned in 1995 that “the last thing this country needs is two Republican parties.”
That’s why they had Harris out there campaigning with Liz Cheney, reiterating her support for Israel, referencing a Glock on daytime television, and vowing to crack down on migrants crossing the border.7
Two Republican parties is sure as hell what we got, folks! But it’s okay. The people love RLWCHOS. They yearn for it!
So, you may be wondering, who ponied up $4mm for The Argument, and what do they want in exchange for their investment?
It will surprise no one to learn that it’s mostly financiers, billionaires in explicitly neoliberal think tanks, and at least one staffer for The Free Press writing absolute bangers like this one:
It all congeals into the bedrock ethos of the Democratic establishment, which is essentially: Things were fine before Donald Trump. We don’t need to offer real change to voters. We just need to beat him by any means necessary (could Bill Clinton run again?), and then everything will go back to the time when things were Good and Fine and Normal.
In this paradigm, there’s never an appropriate opening to criticize Democrats or suggest they do something differently—because beating Donald Trump is always the trump card.8
But a system wherein everything was fine does not produce Donald Trump. A person like Donald Trump does not get elected in a system where everything is already fine and good.
When we call for unity in the Democratic Party, an important piece of the puzzle is often missing:
When people say that Democrats should unify, the part they leave out is most important: Around what? Nearly everyone in Washington seems to assume that progressives should shut up, accept their place, and unify around the status quo.
There’s a singular focus on getting Democrats back in power and almost no focus whatsoever on what they do with that power once they get it. But I’m sure it’s fine, because we have such a strong track record of getting them to do what we want once we give them power!
Now is precisely the time for exerting political power and using what leverage we have. And if we don’t, well…there’s just one problem: When the social order crumbles, fighting for the status quo won’t save you—or get you elected again.9
Norman Thomas answering the question, “Is the New Deal Socialism?” (1936)
The recent Quinnipiac University poll that found 77% of registered Democrats believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza
17 Democrats and all Republican senators voting against Senator Sanders’s resolution to block the sale of “offensive weapons” to Israel in July
Andrea Long Chu’s review in Vulture of Summer of Our Discontent by Thomas Chatterton Williams
“The Left is Right Too Early” by Alex Skopic for Current Affairs
that is, of course, when they aren’t spot-testing different full-coverage foundations on trump’s fucked up hand :/
i cannot emphasize enough how absolutely batshit this is coming from a party that cannot win elections
translation: I work for the rich and the voters are dumb and wrong, actually (but save democracy amirite)
unfortunately their slogan “join us, we’re libbing out” has assumed a tic-like rhythm in my daily internal monologue
first I put caro on the spot, then we read the encyclopedia lol
here’s the referenced Jason Hickel piece about where universal basic income falls short
woke radical marxist kamala harris etc
fuckin pun intended i guess
again, here is your bookend friendly reminder that Democrats currently have a *lower approval rating than Republicans*
