That's certainly the story they tell themselves. As if nothing differently could have been done. As if they didn't control the Senate through the Reagan years. As if they didn't control the House for nearly 50 years before Newt Gingrich came along.
Leaders matter and everyone defending the Democratic establishment seems completely unwilling to admit they made any mistakes whatsoever.
That's certainly the story they tell themselves. As if nothing differently could have been done. As if they didn't control the Senate through the Reagan years. As if they didn't control the House for nearly 50 years before Newt Gingrich came along.
Leaders matter and everyone defending the Democratic establishment seems completely unwilling to admit they made any mistakes whatsoever.
Actually, Dems did not control the Senate through the Reagan years. The GOP had the majority for 6 years. Not to mention there was a large percentage of Conservative Dems (like Sam Nunn, John Breaux, Bennett Johnston, Al Gore, etc.) who were generally pro-life. They would not have gone along with a "codification of Roe" or whatever the heck that would have entailed.
Again, the Left often ignores actual history in exchange for what I call, "fantastical thinking".
The reason why the Democratic Party "walked away" or "abandoned" the working class is simple politics. Fact is, there were simply not enough votes in that group to help win elections. First off, labor unions were already losing members due to plant relocations to right to work states, not to mention shifting overseas. Secondly, the drop in manufacturing and low-skilled labor jobs coincided with an increase in "knowledge jobs". While the northern and midwestern manufacturing working class lost jobs and wages, their college educated children saw increasing wages. We now have a large scale upper middle class in the US (people making a $100K or more). Bill Clinton and the DLC understood this. You know who else understood this? That old conservadem, George McGovern! In fact, many of the members of the DLC, including Bill Clinton, Gary Hart and Tony Cuehlo, worked on McGovern's campaign!
Fact is, Clinton's brilliance was in his ability to both increase Dem's percentages in the Northern, West Coast and Midwestern Suburbs while maintaining or even winning back many of those very working class voters that many like you say we abandoned. Look at Clinton's reelection in 1996. He won every state along the Mississippi River as well as every state in what I call the PAC 12, plus NV and NM. He was the first Dem to win FL since LBJ and he won Appalachia. He won a majority of the vote in LA and TN for goodness sake. Bush won many of these states back in 2000 and 2008, mainly due to his religion and the War on Terror. Also, Bush ran as a moderate GOPer and won many Latino votes, which helped him win NM, NV and CO.
The Left needs to ask themselves how did Clinton do this? How did he win Appalachia and the Mississippi Valley? Social issues, not economic ones. He won by championing welfare reform, being tough on crime, and economic fairness. He ran on raising taxes on the rich, while cutting taxes for the middle class. Dems too often focus on the last one here, when without the first two, most of these people will not even listen to the pitch on the last one. My family is working class, and I will tell you that for them working is a social issue. Even among the poor, people who work resent those that don't. People who play by the rules resent the criminal element in their midst.
Bill Clinton said it best, and all Dems and the Left would do well to remember this: "We are for people who work hard, play by the rules, and want a fair shake, an opportunity to make their lives better."
This should be the Democratic Party's mantra and they should repeat it over and over. Instead, if you say something like this, you will immediately get some Left winger who will complain about the rules, what does fair mean, and all other BS.
The problem here is that the Supreme Court would still have overruled anything else you suppose the Dems should have done, and you are unclear as to exactly what they should have done.
It was 44 years, and until about 1992 a huge chunk of their caucuse was pro-life.
Roe v Wade was a 7-2 decision in which five of the seven were Republican appointees.
Casey v Planned Parenthood, in 1992, awas a 5-4 decision in which ALL FIVE VOTES(!) were Republican appointees.
The realignment of parties around abortion politics wasn't complete until John Paul Stevens, a Republican appointee who was in the Roe majority, stepped down in 2010 for Obama to appoint his replacement.
That's certainly the story they tell themselves. As if nothing differently could have been done. As if they didn't control the Senate through the Reagan years. As if they didn't control the House for nearly 50 years before Newt Gingrich came along.
Leaders matter and everyone defending the Democratic establishment seems completely unwilling to admit they made any mistakes whatsoever.
Actually, Dems did not control the Senate through the Reagan years. The GOP had the majority for 6 years. Not to mention there was a large percentage of Conservative Dems (like Sam Nunn, John Breaux, Bennett Johnston, Al Gore, etc.) who were generally pro-life. They would not have gone along with a "codification of Roe" or whatever the heck that would have entailed.
Again, the Left often ignores actual history in exchange for what I call, "fantastical thinking".
The reason why the Democratic Party "walked away" or "abandoned" the working class is simple politics. Fact is, there were simply not enough votes in that group to help win elections. First off, labor unions were already losing members due to plant relocations to right to work states, not to mention shifting overseas. Secondly, the drop in manufacturing and low-skilled labor jobs coincided with an increase in "knowledge jobs". While the northern and midwestern manufacturing working class lost jobs and wages, their college educated children saw increasing wages. We now have a large scale upper middle class in the US (people making a $100K or more). Bill Clinton and the DLC understood this. You know who else understood this? That old conservadem, George McGovern! In fact, many of the members of the DLC, including Bill Clinton, Gary Hart and Tony Cuehlo, worked on McGovern's campaign!
Fact is, Clinton's brilliance was in his ability to both increase Dem's percentages in the Northern, West Coast and Midwestern Suburbs while maintaining or even winning back many of those very working class voters that many like you say we abandoned. Look at Clinton's reelection in 1996. He won every state along the Mississippi River as well as every state in what I call the PAC 12, plus NV and NM. He was the first Dem to win FL since LBJ and he won Appalachia. He won a majority of the vote in LA and TN for goodness sake. Bush won many of these states back in 2000 and 2008, mainly due to his religion and the War on Terror. Also, Bush ran as a moderate GOPer and won many Latino votes, which helped him win NM, NV and CO.
The Left needs to ask themselves how did Clinton do this? How did he win Appalachia and the Mississippi Valley? Social issues, not economic ones. He won by championing welfare reform, being tough on crime, and economic fairness. He ran on raising taxes on the rich, while cutting taxes for the middle class. Dems too often focus on the last one here, when without the first two, most of these people will not even listen to the pitch on the last one. My family is working class, and I will tell you that for them working is a social issue. Even among the poor, people who work resent those that don't. People who play by the rules resent the criminal element in their midst.
Bill Clinton said it best, and all Dems and the Left would do well to remember this: "We are for people who work hard, play by the rules, and want a fair shake, an opportunity to make their lives better."
This should be the Democratic Party's mantra and they should repeat it over and over. Instead, if you say something like this, you will immediately get some Left winger who will complain about the rules, what does fair mean, and all other BS.
The problem here is that the Supreme Court would still have overruled anything else you suppose the Dems should have done, and you are unclear as to exactly what they should have done.
It was 44 years, and until about 1992 a huge chunk of their caucuse was pro-life.
Roe v Wade was a 7-2 decision in which five of the seven were Republican appointees.
Casey v Planned Parenthood, in 1992, awas a 5-4 decision in which ALL FIVE VOTES(!) were Republican appointees.
The realignment of parties around abortion politics wasn't complete until John Paul Stevens, a Republican appointee who was in the Roe majority, stepped down in 2010 for Obama to appoint his replacement.
I'm just going to copy and paste what I said to this exact same comment:
https://morningshots.thebulwark.com/p/but-he-doesnt-fight/comment/7671048