Ruy Teixeira: Some Tough Love for the Democrats

Welcome to the Bulwark podcast. I’m Charlie Sykes. It is Wednesday, and I’m really pleased to welcome back one of my favorite guests on the program. Rui Teixeira. Rui is a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and co editor of the sub sec newsletter, the liberal patriot in his most recent book is the optimistic leftist.

Why the twenty first century will be better than you think? So first of all, good morning, Rui. Good morning, Charlie. Are you still optimistic? Are you still an optimistic leftist?

Well, yeah. I mean, I’m optimistic over the long haul. Over the short haul, I’m less sanguine, I guess. Right?

You find long haul. Like, in our lifetime, before the sun goes dim?

No. But that way before the sun goes dim. I mean, I said the twenty first century. Right? We still got a lot of twenty first century left.

And even as bad things are happening, which are easily recounted, you know, I I always try to remember the world is getting richer. And healthcare is getting better for people around the world. And, you know, there’s the reasons to be optimistic. The technological capabilities of civilization will become aligned over time with people’s needs more than they are today. And as I say, I think we’re going to continue to get richer and I think some sort of generally social democratic approach to spreading the benefits of growth and promoting growth will eventually prevail.

We’re not in that situation now. Obviously, in the short term in the United States politically because both parties cut their heads up their wazoos. But — Yeah. — maybe things will improve. I I think we will.

You know, but you gotta have some patience.

Well, I wanna cling to that hope for a moment, but let’s go back to where we are right now. The this this go back this particular moment, most of this podcast is going to be tough love for the Democrats and how they should talk about issues like the economy, the culture, crime, immigration, etcetera. But we have to start off by talking about this, the Hershel Walker story. And really what it says about our political culture right now and more specifically about the Republican Party. Because as as I wrote this morning, you know, this the GOP rallying around Hershel Walker after the story that he paid for a girlfriend’s abortion is is really less a revelation that it’s a reminder of how that party’s been broken.

But also, I think it’s really a preview of what’s going to happen in twenty twenty four because if anybody has any doubts, that the rules of politics have changed or that Republicans will find a way to rationalize, engaging what aboutism, binary h choices, etcetera. And rally around Donald Trump again no matter what he says or does, no matter what crimes he has committed, no matter who he slurs, no matter how racist or seditious he becomes, no matter how much he sucks. None of that actually matters. They will rally around them. And and if you have any doubts, watch how the Hershel Walker thing is playing out.

Also, for any of you that actually think that the Republican party I mean, after after six years, into the Trump era is actually serious about character family values. I mean, seriously, you should stop being surprised about this. I’m tired. I didn’t answer the question. What will it take to break the Republican party from this?

The answer is nothing. I mean, Hershel Walker mean, you think about me. Her her Hershel Walker’s ex wife says he threatened her life up when a gun in her temple form of girlfriend says he threatened her life There are all these questions about his business practices, and of course, now we have the abortion. And it’s important to note how the right the whole right right wing in the country is rallying around Hershel Walker. I mean, it’s not just the Republican party.

It’s it’s also, you know, the spokespeople. So I wanna play a little bit of a sound bite of Daniel Loach, who’s a former flack spokesman TV personality on behalf of the NRA. Who tweeted out yesterday, you know, if this is true. I mean, she basically is willing to accept that Hershel Walker, you know, urged his girlfriend and paid for her abortion. If it’s true that Walker paid for and this is what she she wrote on her tweet.

If true that Walker paid for one broad abortion, Compared to warnock who wants your tax dollars to pay for every broad’s abortion as birth control with no limitations, this is not a difficult choice and conservative shouldn’t hazard whatever. Now, at first you go, what’s this, you know, one broad’s abortion? Well, she doubled down on that. But I figuring that maybe broad was not a strong enough term. So so on her television show, she escalated to calling this woman a skank.

Several times. I wanna play this because you need to understand the mentality right now out there. This is a conservative radio host in a lotion.

So does this change anything?

Are

I mean, do you want my opinion? Are you listening? Mhmm. Not a damn thing?

How

many times have I said four very important words? These four words. Winning is a virtue.

What

I’m about to say is in no means a contradiction or a compromise of a principle. And please keep in mind that I am concerned about one thing and one thing only at this point. So I don’t care if Hershel Walker paid to abort endangered baby eagles. I want control of the senate.

Okay. Mhmm.

If the Daily Beast story is true, you’re telling me Walker used his money to reportedly pay some skank for an abortion, and warnock wants to use all of our monies to pay a whole bunch of skinks for abortions.

Yeah.

And, yes, when they’re used predominantly over ninety nine percent of birth control and it’s my taxpayer dollars, you have invited me up in your business and I will use what ever Descript I would like to. Thank you. Mhmm.

You’re welcome.

So

it doesn’t change anything from me. I mean,

that that’s really what it comes down to. And and by the way, I I know it feels like kind of, you know, a digression to point out that it was not baby eagles. That Walker had had aborted, but whatever. But there you have it. It’s all about winning.

It’s all about power. And it’s, again, in their in their heads, they would say, well, we’re not abandoning principle, but this is basically a complete post ethical environment. And it is this binary choice, what about ism, and this is the new reality. Isn’t it? Well,

yeah. I mean, they look, they’re they’re in a box all these people. I mean, the politicians, in general, even right wing ideologues, like, that woman or in a box. I mean, whatever doubts they may have about the wisdom of having nominated Hershel Walker and whatever things may be associated with them or come out. You know, they don’t feel like there’s any percentage in throwing anybody under the bus at this point.

They really, really, really wanna win. They’re stuck with people like this guy who is like one of the world’s worst candidates. I’m gonna get an amendment to the last dog dies or eagles dies or whatever. So, yeah, that’s where they’re at. And how you’re going to break the Republican party out of this situation where they are basically leaving votes on the table because of a lot of these dumb things that they do and a lot of the ways in which they appear to be such extravests to the media and voter.

And don’t have shall we say quality candidates. It’s difficult to see at this point. Certainly in the short run, I don’t see anything changing and maybe not through twenty twenty four and we’ll see. But I think it’s just like the Democratic Party needs to move to the senator. Boy, does the Republican party need to move to the center and scoosing and justifying and doubling down on Hershel Walker and whatever other crazy candidates they come up with is probably not the recommended way to do that.

But like I say, they’re in a box. They don’t see how they get out of this this unfortunate situation with the smarter among them, you know, feel, you know, they should. But, you know, there are people like you guys at the Bulwark that have figured out, this just isn’t gonna work. The

Bulwark didn’t work out for them in Alabama. Right? Right. They probably

but they

got the snip. K. But the thing about it is is that they used to know how to get out of the box. I mean, it wasn’t that long. You and I are both old enough to remember.

Todd Aiken in Missouri. I was actually on the morning Joe today with Claire McCaskill and she brought this up. There was a time when somebody said something that was offensive and wrong headed about abortion, and Republicans around the country nationally said, okay, we’re we’re done with you and we’re willing to give up a senate seed in a closely divided Senate back then. And and yet that feels like it’s a different planet politically.

Well, yeah. Before the rise of Trump, before the activation of the most in TransUnion and downright weird parts of the Republican base in a way the transformation of that space, which now they’re very afraid of. Yeah. It was a different world. And now, you know, they they I think those politicians sort

of more

mainstream parts of the Republican party that aren’t willing to break because they they feel like they’ve got a gun to their head. So So when something like this comes up, they grit their teeth and they say what they feel they need to needs to be said to defend their their god. Like this situation like

this. So let’s talk about the Democrats. And I don’t think it’s any secret. I’ll I’ll we’ll say this to you directly. I am a regular reader of the Liberal Patriot, and and attempted every single time you post something to just simply turn over my newsletter morning shots to what you wrote because it’s like, this guy, what he’s saying here, and and I’m not I’m not sure the democrats have fully internalized what you’re saying, but I wanna ask you a couple of questions.

You you mentioned the democrats need to figure out how to talk about some of these issues. And I I’m sitting here in Wisconsin, as you know, and every other ad that is on and we are just being hammered with with with political ads this year. Every other ad, and maybe that’s understating, and maybe eighty percent of the ads, with the Republican ads, are focused on the issue of crime, pounding and pounding on crime. I guess, let’s let’s start with that. Mhmm.

Why do Democrats have such a hard time talking about crime or coming up with a message that is compelling in response because my sense is that for the most part, what they’re saying is, well, it’s not true that we’re four defund the police. The crime problem is really not that bad. And let’s talk about something else, but right now Republicans are all in on crime. So let’s talk about what Democrats are saying about crime and what they should be saying about

crime. Well, yeah,

I think that is what they’re saying now is they just wanna change the subject. I literally heard operatives for the Democratic Party and consultants and whatever, basically give that advice. Someone mentions crime. You talk about something else. But I think as Wisconsin is demonstrating in common sense would suggest If you’re highly vulnerable on an issue like this that has significant saliance, you can just deal with it.

It’s not very effective just to, like, say nothing or pretend it’s not a problem and just talk about, I don’t know, the inflation reduction act or something. So I think this is a bit silly, but I think this is this is how a lot of Democrats are approaching it. And I think a lot of it stems from the fact that they themselves are scared of their own. Base

and

can’t really pivot on crime in the way they they need to. It’s it’s super obvious. Crime is a huge problem. It’s super obvious. Normally voters hate crime.

The median voter hates crime. Everybody hates crime. And you’re not gonna solve the problem of crime by you know, bill reform, which Mandela Barnes is associated with. This is not a good news for me talking to him on

that issue of cash bill.

Right. There. Co question, Kelly. Look, I mean, with what happened in Waukesha, I mean, it it defies common sense that in a barnes himself hasn’t pivoted more in the direction of sort of against that those sort of policies, at least at this point in time, and sort of trying to emphasize he wants to put violent criminals in jail and to some extent keep him there for a while. Right?

That’s the obvious thing to do, but his ideology won’t let him do it. Maybe his own base won’t let him do it in in a broad sense in terms of the Democratic party as a whole. They feel their base. Will let them do it. You and I both called for, you know, using the wonderful recall of Chesapeake, and San Francisco is a good time to have a a Chesapeake, moment, a sort of sister soldier moment for the current day and say, well, you know, the voters of San Francisco has spoken.

There is no way that the approach that, you know, mister Boudin was was using in that city with crime and homelessness out of control. That’s not what we stand for. We stand for being much tougher even as we stand for being humane as we do it. We’ve got to clean up the streets. We’ve got to get the criminals in jail.

That’s what we democrat stand for. We’re we’re a hundred and fifty percent for public safety, you know, first and foremost. And Chesapeake, had the wrong approach and people in the Democratic party who have that approach, that is not the Democratic approach. Right? Something like that.

But of course, it was never set. Who’s the leading politician who who used that opportunity to to say that that’s what the Democrats stood for. And I think they’re just terrified of the blowback they’ll get if they do that. I mean, imagine all the, you know, Twitter will will freak out all the Democratic activists will freak out, the groups will freak out, and they don’t wanna take the heat?

Well, Joe Biden has said things about being tough on crime has said things about refunding the police, adding police officers. But it doesn’t seem to have penetrated. Is it because he hasn’t said it forcefully enough? He hasn’t said it frequently enough? Is it because it’s just a one off?

I think it’s

all of the above. He hasn’t said it forcefully enough. He hasn’t said it frequently enough. And he hasn’t called out anybody by name. So people don’t know how serious he really is about it.

If he literally used the phrase, tough one crime, tough one the causes of crime, I think that would get them a little

bit a

little bit down the road. Yeah. And and and he, like the rest of the Democrats, do tend to pivot immediately if they’re willing to talk about crime or crime related issues to talking about guns. You gotta get the guns off the street. Well, common sense suggests the guns don’t fire themselves.

They’re fired by criminals, and you have to get the criminals off the street. And that is something that a lot of Democrats, you know, it’s sort of the the words stick in their throat. They’re just not willing to make the obvious point that Yeah. It’d be nice to stop the traffic in guns, but we also have the crackdown on the people who use the guns. And we can’t hesitate about putting them in jail.

Punishing them and what have you. People wanna hear this. And until they hear that and they hear that a lot, they’re not gonna believe you. And if they feel you’re associated with would appear at this point in time to be, you know, cloud cuckoo land crazy stuff about how you’re gonna reform the criminal justice system. And then cash bail and so on when, you know, what happened in Waukesha, happened in Waukesha.

You know, I mean, this is so with Normandy voters, it just sounds like you’re, like, kinda crazy. I mean, you’re unrealistic. You’re untethered from reality. For people

outside of Wisconsin who may not get that reference, just trust me every voter in Wisconsin knows what you’re talking about about Waukesha. This is the Waukesha Christmas parade where a a demented individual drove through the parade, killed six people, injured several dozen. And it turns out that he was out on a ridiculously low cash bail. And it’s really put the focus on prosecutors who let people, you know, dangerous criminals out on the street And then you have the problem of Mandela Barnes, who has a long track record, on the record of being in favor of the abolition of cash bail introducing legislation that would make it easier for people to get out of jail. And he has not backed off on that.

And as a result, Republicans are just hammering him, hammering and hammering. Now, you know, we’re gonna get all kinds of blowback from people who were saying, well, actually, Charlie. This is the reason why it’s wrong. I’m just telling you the political reality that right now when you have a candidate in the wake of what happened in Wankashaw saying, yes, absolutely. We should abolish cash bail and we should make it harder for harder to keep, you know, dangerous criminals in jail.

That is not meeting the moment. To put it mildly?

Yeah. To put

it mildly. Okay. So you you have in the liberal patriot, you’ve been writing about, you know, Democrats uncompetitiveness on a number of issues. And again, I don’t wanna get into a, you know, prediction of who’s gonna win the midterms and what the polls are showing, but let’s just talk about your first piece dealt with cultural issues. And you wrote, you know, after the dust settles in November, Democrats will still face the daunting obstacles were looming before their fortunes improved in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision.

So you you know, you’re talking about the the same geographic occasion, polarization is gonna remain, and it’s probably gonna get worse as Democrats become increasingly the party of white eliq college educated voters. So let’s talk about the cultural problem Democrats are facing right now. Well,

yeah. I mean, I think it’s it’s obviously not just crime. It’s a lot of issues and it has to do with immigration. Right? I mean, what is the Democrat’s plan for securing the border?

They don’t really have much of a plan. I mean, this is like a massive influx they’re getting at the border. And people don’t like the idea that people could just sort of walk across the border, say it’s apply for asylum and then wind up getting released into the United States and that it just the whole thing seems chaotic and out of control. People want immigrants treated humanely. They want a fair system for deciding who gets in the country, who does not, but they really don’t like the idea.

People just strolling across the border and winding up in the United States and doing whatever it is that they do. You know, many people know, many people who might be immigrants and even some illegal immigrants, but they just want the current situation put under control This is again something that Democrats feel. They can’t really project any kind of toughness on, any kind of real plan for how to deal with it because you know, no immigrant, no human as a legal or something like that. Right? This whole kind of quasi open borders thing where, you know, everybody should be able to come to the United States who wants because that would be a good idea and they they come from terrible places.

Well, of course, it’s always been like, okay, so people wanna come to America because it’s a better place to live. You know, and for economic mobility and so on. But that doesn’t mean therefore that, you know, we should just open the borders to whoever wants to come that That is not where the American people are at. That’s not where the median voters at. That’s not even where the there are tons of Hispanics who are opposed to this kind of stuff too.

And the closer they get to the border, the more that that’s true. So the idea that Democrats can’t say anything other than sort of the current incoherent policy because that would be xenophobic as part of their problem. I mean, if you look at the crime thing, a lot of the reason why you can’t talk about being tough on crime and actually exhibit toughness on crime because that would be intrinsically racist because those are the people who are public who are punished by being tough on crime. Of course, if you look at the actual existing opinions of people, for example, in the black community, they actually do want more They do want you to be tough and pretty. We wanna get the

criminals off the streets because those are the people who really suffer. And Eric Adams demonstrated that in New York. The mayor of New York. I mean, this is kind of a and again, this is another indication of how the party seems to be dominated by these, you know, younger college educated a leads who seem not just out of touch with white working class voters, but actually working class Hispanic and black voters two. Yeah.

And I think this is starting to show up. So let me just step back for a moment. I mean, look, as as you point out, you know, for people who are in denial about this, I mean, these questions have we have really huge implications for Democrats in the electoral college and in Congress, especially in in the Senate. And so the the lack of competitiveness among white working class voters, voters in exurban small town rural America. I mean, this can’t be brushed aside So give me your take over the last twenty years.

Why have

Democrats lost so much ground? I mean, I’m looking at the demographics of places in Wisconsin that that at one time voted for Barack Obama voted for John Kerry. And now not only are voting Republican, but are voting Republican in huge numbers And I think it’s worthwhile asking, what happened here? Why is this happening? Right.

Well, that’s a

big question, Charlie. And actually, writing a book in it now with John Judas. Cold where have all the Democrats gone — Yeah. — coming out in twenty twenty three. But, you know, I think some very abbreviated summary can be given here.

You could argue that the high point of the democratic coalition that we talked about at the emerging credit majority was reached in two thousand and eight when

Obama got

a

thumping victory and actually did relatively well among white working class voters. Compared to recent history for the Democrats. He swept the Midwest. He did extremely well. That quickly disappeared.

In twenty ten, the Democrats got crushed. Under the weight of the reaction against some of the Obama policies and particularly how the economy wasn’t recovering in a sense that his administration was alien from them as well even though they put some faith in it and it was primarily led by white working class voters. Twenty twelve, Obama claws back some of these voters runs a populist campaign against Mitt Romney. Then the democrats get thumped again in twenty fourteen. And you see this gradual thing evolving

in

the Democratic Party of feeling like,

you know, we

keep on you know, sort of having these good policies we put in front of the voters, and we keep on sort of living in an America that’s becoming a very multi culture, multiracial. It looks like some of those people don’t like it. And what can we do about that? Well, maybe there’s not that much we could do about it. We need to bet on this rising.

You know, American electorate and not worry so much about those voters who don’t like us. And that comes home to roost in a big way in twenty sixteen where Donald Trump beats Hillary Clinton against all expectations because Hillary runs a campaign that’s extremely terms of what she was willing wanted to talk about was very short of policy, even in a broad sense and and very strong in how awful Trump was. And how xenophobic racist and so on and blah blah blah. What about our daughters? You can look at the spending on ads that she did in the campaign and have she ignored Wisconsin, Michigan and places like that.

Very clear that she was betting on the rising American electorate and responding to what she felt was what what her consultants were telling her and what she felt like the center of gravity the Democratic party was at the time. She was gonna run that campaign. Trump, sets of things to a racist and xenophobia. He also talked a ton about trade. He talked about manufacturing.

He talked about what’s happening in the heartland. He talked about the elites. He don’t give a crap about you. I mean, he had a a very strong message that really resonated with a lot of white working class people who felt like the Democratic Party was no longer on their side, looked down on them culturally and in every other way, it basically wasn’t doing much for them. So they gave Trump a chance.

And then forward to twenty twenty, you get a situation where the white working class voters mostly stayed with the Republicans and you had them join by significant sectors of the non white working class who, as a Democratic Party, became even more culturally liberal, if not radical, over the course of the four years Donald Trump because if anything reinforced the idea that the great unwashed masses out there are simply un enlightened and afraid of the multiculture, multiracial America was the election of Donald Trump, and that swept through the party — Yes. — swept through the party affiliated or sympathetic institutions in the media activists, nonprofits, foundations, what have you. That became a deep party line. That this was what it was all about. And the democrats had to be forthright and uncompromising in pushing forward toward the kind of America they had vision.

In an odd sort of way, Charlie, in twenty eighteen where the Democrats did really well, it was really mostly because of relatively moderate candidates because people just didn’t like Donald Trump, particularly. But who was lionized after that, you know, sweeping victory in twenty eighteen? People like AOC, the squad. Yeah. People got elected in plus twenty five Democratic districts you know, a couple of the knocked out Democratic incumbents are actually pretty liberal.

I mean, that was like the new face of the party. Are you kidding me? These people, you know, they were running in districts where AOC’s dog could have gotten elected to congress once they got the nomination. So It was a a terrible mistake to interpret the twenty eighteen election as meaning the Democrats needed to press the accelerator on a lot of their more radical positions. That are culturally inflected.

And we saw that coming out in the twenty twenty primaries, right, for the Democratic nomination where they were out doing each other. In terms of the level of rhetoric and positions on culturally rated issues. So eventually Biden got the nomination. He got elected really is a moderate to restore normality in the country, but, you know, that’s where he may have might have wanted, but if that’s not what his party was particularly oriented toward. And I think, unfortunately, he’s become a prisoner of his party.

He finds it difficult to break out of his own box as it were. And I think that applies to a lot of democratic politicians as well. They’re not willing willing

to

take make a decisive break from their their base on a lot of these issues. And the base is kind of weird for the Democrats because it also also includes the commanding heights of cultural production. Right, because the Democratic Wilkes point of view does dominate all those venues and makes politicians very afraid of blowback and criticism. I don’t

know

if you

remember this, Charlie, but the Biden campaign was supposedly convinced that Twitter wasn’t real life. But the weird thing that happened is after he got elected, It seemed like they decided Twitter was real life, and they weren’t gonna go against that.

Okay. So

speaking of blowback, you have absolutely sterling credentials as a man of the left. You have been a figure in democratic party, in progressive politics, for decades. Am I aging you? Am I, like, dating you or anything? Fair enough.

And and and yet when you come up with this kind of critique, what kind of blowback did you get? And obviously, I’m thinking of the fact that you made a professional move. You are now at a center rate think tank. What what what happened? What what is the environment when someone like you says these sorts of things about about how Democrats are losing the center?

Well,

I think it depends on who you’re talking about. I think for the people who I relate the most closely to and talk to all the time, they share some of my — Yeah. — my reservation. So to them, you know, as they became more aggressive about these issues, you know, they they were either well, sometimes publicly but frequently privately saying, yeah. Yeah.

You’re right about that. Yes. Know, this is really terrible. We’re not doing this right. But among the more, you know, party line faithful, the people at the center of American progress and other left is institutions, the people who columnists who tend to trumpet that line and and the media and so on.

They weren’t too happy about it. I mean, the standard sort of take is, you know, these kinds of criticisms you’re making are Fox News talking points. They’re not really fair. The democrats are still the progressive party that stands for this that and the other thing. And you’re giving basically aid and comfort to the enemy.

So that’s the standard line I get, and I have gotten it a lot. And you know what? I don’t care. Because You know, this is like pretty important stuff. And I honestly don’t believe that the Democrats can make progress on making this country a much better place and and beat the other side who appears to be somewhat crazy at this point.

Yeah. You’re

criticizing them because you want them to win. You

want them to win. I want them to win. Govern in a good way and, you know, stick around for a while. And I don’t think they can do it given the structure of the American electoral system, given the weaknesses that develop them on White Swash of the population, and they need to fix that. And until,

unless they fix that, their ceiling is pretty low. So that’s my view. You mentioned just in passing the Fox News talking point argument here. And you’ve written about this before, what do you call it, the Fox News fallacy? Correct.

Fox News fallacy yet.

Which is basically that if Fox News is talking about something, it must not be legitimate and we should either, you know, push back against it or ignore it altogether? I mean, that’s that’s one of the dynamics, isn’t it? Oh,

for sure. And I I did write about that at some length, my sub stack. Mhmm. Yeah. That’s you know, there’s a variety of issues where this is true.

It’s true on crime. It’s true on immigration. It’s true on anything to do with race. It’s true on sort of trans issues and gender ideology. It’s true about what’s taught in the schools.

The Republicans have leveled criticisms of the Democrats on all these fronts. About the democrats are going too far or they’re not gonna solve a particular problem like crime or they’re soft on this and they’re trying to oppose your ideology on that in that way. And the standard Democratic reply is these are not problems in the way The Republicans and Fox News talks about it. In fact, and this is always the follow-up, the very fact that they would raise issues about that or you would raise issues about that. Just shows the races of xenophobia, transphobia, and a variety of other phobias you might care to name and just show how what awful reaction or a traglidite people, they are as opposed to thinking about in the sense that Well, there’s some things that are being said here that are real problems and we need to respond to them and acknowledge them and reassure voters we get it.

And then there’s other stuff that’s being said, that’s the wrong approach, and we have a better approach. And here’s our approach. That’s sort of the this sort of logical way to reply to a scathing criticism that actually is a real weakness and real vulnerability of you and your party. But that’s not the approach. Approach is deny deny deny attack attack attack your opponent for being, you know, essentially an awful person.

In some way, matter, shape, or form. And I don’t think that serving the democrats well at this

point. Well, you have a three point reform plan and you you you wrote about this that that the first thing that Democrats have to do is move to the center on cultural issues. Right now, they’re thinking that dobs you know, places them in the center, but you’re pointing out, and again, we’ve talked about this a little bit here. But, you know, crime immigration, race a essentialism and gender ideology aren’t the abortion issues. And what you’re right is voters think the Democrats can’t look beyond identity politics to ensure public safety, secure borders, high quality, non ideological education, and economic progress.

So what do you do about that? What is the reform plan if in fact, you know, Democrats do have this identity problem.

Well, you just moved to the center on all those issues, all of them. And you try to and I think part of that, and this is a part Democrats have the most trouble with. Is you’re going to have to admit, you

know, some

of the things done and said in the name of the Democratic Party are not what the Democratic Party stands sort of necessary name names, name particular policies. You have to you have to draw some lines, Charlie, and that’s what they don’t wanna do. You know, if your opponents are associating you with stuff that sounds incredibly stupid to the average voter and, you know, in some ways, just really awful and off putting. Something they don’t want part of their lives or it’s affecting their lives in a negative way. You have this make it very clear.

That’s not what you stand for. You stand for a much more moderate approach. You get it. You know, this Democratic Party is a moderate party. We do care about public safety.

We do care about securing the border. We do not want kids taught to view themselves through the lens of race all the time. We don’t want kindergartner has taught about gender ideology and gender fluidity. This is not what we stand for. We are a tolerant party, but we are willing to draw lines.

So that’s how you that’s how you do that, and it’s it’s not something Democrats are comfortable to do. But sometimes in life, Charlie, you’ve got to do things you’re uncomfortable doing. Well, as you also point out, it’s also about attitude. I wanna

redo something you wrote. To even get in the door with many working class and rural voters and make their pitch Democrats need to convince these voters that they are not looked down on, that their concerns are taken seriously, and their views on culturally fretted issues will not be summarily dismissed as unenlightened. With today’s Democratic party, unfortunately, that is difficult. Resistance is stiff to any compromise that might involve moving to the center on such issues. So it’s not just the center.

It is there is a problem of contempt,

isn’t there? I believe so. Yes. I’ve I’ve said it a a number of times and that passage I think is particularly good and and pointed in that regard. And yeah, I don’t look I mean, I talk to these people all the time.

I know them very well and believe me. That is a real thing. They don’t wanna have a nuanced understanding of why someone in Ohio might have voted for Trump. They wanna simply denounce them as a racist. They they they don’t really wanna understand.

They just want to categorize And as they categorize, they want to push them aside. And what people get it? They know that. They know how they’re being looked at. They know how they’re being treated.

And, you know, unless you can actually convince these voters, you don’t in fact look down at them. You do take their concerns seriously. If you understand they may have complicated views on things. And if they don’t say or do the politically correct thing, you’re not gonna automatically dismiss them as as I said, simply unenlighten. And not down with the, you know, beautiful multicultural, multiracial America that’s evolving before our very eyes.

So so I think that’s really important. I think that Biden tried to do that a little bit in his campaign. And I think that’s one reason he got elected because at least to some extent, people found that plausible. But I think it’s all been blown up by, you know, the first couple of years of the Biden administration and how the Democratic Party has continued to exhibit these attitudes, I think. Howard

Bauchner: So, you know,

I mentioned though the the problem of of contempt. And you’re at at AEI right now. You know, the former president of AEI. I’m sure you’ve read this. Arthur Brooks has written about this extensively.

He talks about our culture of contempt. And says the problem that we have is not just incivility or intolerance, it’s something far worse. And it makes this the political point that that if people think you’re rolling your eyes at them, that you look down on them, they’re not going to listen to your ideas about tax reform. Right? If basically the interchanges, I think you’re an ignorant mouth breathing bigot.

Would you like to hear my position now on antitrust legislation? It’s

Right. Wow. Right? It’s

not gonna

work. Okay. So your

three point reform plan.

First is on the cultural issues. Second piece deals with economic issues. Voters right now don’t think much about Democratic management of the economy despite these legislative victories. So, you know, Democrats are saying, hey, inflation, high energy price cases, you know, they’re not our problem. So what should Democrats be saying?

What are they getting wrong? And what should they be saying about the economy? Because they’re getting killed on it right now. Right. They’re getting killed in

it right now. And to some extent, you know, obviously, we’re pretty close to the election. It’s gonna be hard to to pivot very effectively at this point in inflation is what it is. I mean, it’s a material reality. A lot of voters What I was trying to get at in my second point, I I described it as the Democrats must promote an abundance agenda that I think Democratic elites are way too are basically animated by a couple of things.

One, a general desire for redistribution and two, stopping climate change by any means necessary. And I think, you know, if you look at it from the standpoint of the average working class motor, that’s not their agenda. What they want is an opportunity to get ahead. They want more stuff. They want higher income, more growth, you know, a better life for them and their children.

And it’s not clear to them when they see the democrats in action, especially in this inflation ridden economy, that that’s really kind of their plan. I mean, the climate change in particular issue in particular something I talked about in that piece is is is really important to kind of dwell on and understand, I think, because one thing, Democratic, you know, activist Democrats and certainly Democratic elites don’t appear to understand at this point. This climate is a low saliance issue for most voters, particularly working class voters. They are fine with let’s do something about climate. That’s, you know, a great idea of renewables.

I’m sure that they’re good things. But, you know, they are not getting up in the morning and thinking about how can I stop climate change in the apocalypse that’s coming. They’re getting up in the morning and thinking about Well, what can I do today to make my life better right now? How can I get ahead? How can I get richer?

How can I, you know, help my family? Can I make my community better? So Democratic elites are obsessed with climate change and think it’s a really high salience issue and to them and they’re gonna pursue it. Regardless of what happens to energy prices, regardless of what happens to energy reliability and so on, my view on that issue is unless you can pursue a clean energy transition in a way that provides cheap, reliable, abundant energy you’re not going to get the political support needed for it. And in fact, you’re going to alienate people.

And I think that there’s a lot of wishful thinking on the part of a lot of people in and around the climate. Issue about how quickly this transition can go and how the bad effects could be avoided despite the fact we’ve already seen some bad effects. It’s it’s pretty hard to all of a sudden connect a lot of renewables to the grid, and that’s gonna be pretty hard to get it up to seventy percent or eighty percent as some people seem to want. So let let’s have a reality check here and say, well, fossil fuels are gonna be around for a while, natural gas is gonna play a big role, and we’re just going to we’re gonna have a transition But by God, as we do look, we’re gonna keep energy cheap, abundant, reliable. That’s what we Democrats stand for.

First and foremost, we’re gonna make sure that happens. But I don’t think that’s the first and foremost that people hear from the Democratic Party. They hear, you know, we gotta puts the pedal to the metal and this stuff and you should go buy an electric car and trust us, this will all work out greatly in. And I think that’s that’s really far from the way the median voter, especially the median working class voter, relates to the issue. So I think the Democrat should bet an abundance instead, figure out how to create a dynamic, fast growing economy that can deliver a lot of benefits to a lot of people, including in the left behind areas of the country.

And now that’s difficult to do I’m not saying easy, but people have to be clear on what your priorities are, what you care most about. If they think you think you care most about you know, climate change, you know, that’s secondarily, you would like it if people did better and had cheap energy prices. I think that’s a loser. Well, see, I

think the key to this and this is why this is such an important point is and you you’ve written about this that the prerequisite for a lot of what they want to do is faster economic growth. Right? Yeah. So when the economy does better, people are more generous. They’re more tolerant.

They’re more willing to experiment with all of this. So when you talk about an abundance agenda, you know, it’s true. People do want. They they don’t wanna go back to Jimmy Carter, you know, sitting with the sweater, you know, basically saying, we need a lid with limits. I mean, you wanna talk about the the historic collapse of the liberal consensus.

It was when instead of saying, you know, things are gonna get better and they’re gonna grow and bigger. It’s like, no, maybe this is as good as it gets and maybe, you know, your children are not gonna live as prosperously as you were and people turned away from all of that. And because people do want more growth, more stuff, more opportunity, nicer, more comfortable lives. And that this can happen but they have to make it clear that it is that it is growth, not sort of endless eating your broccoli And so you point out, you gotta go beyond wind and solar to include nuclear, geothermal, carbon capture, other possibilities. This seems to me to be sort of an obvious agenda and yet there’s tremendous resistance to things like nuclear or to acknowledge the point you made that you gotta keep the grid working.

You can’t have blackouts. You’re you’re not simply going to be able to run a country this size on renewable energy. And so you’re going to have to make these compromises. So what again, is this part of being in the box that because people still remember Jane Fonda’s movies? You know, from the 1970s that they’re not in favor of clean nuclear energy?

Yeah. I mean, I think it’s partly a result of of being in a box and being afraid of again, the blowback from sort of the

green energy

industrial complex. And that has quite a purchase on a lot of activist elements within the party. People who make donations, people in the groups, quote unquote. And, you know, I I think that in turn has a close connection to what I think can be only called an ideology or even a religion about, you know, green energy in particular, renewables, wind and solar. I mean, people envision other futures.

The sun is shining. The wind is ruffling your hair. And, you know, energy is abundant everywhere, and it’s a beautiful life. Yeah. That’s a nice vision, but it just doesn’t come forth with reality.

In a country like the United States, and it certainly doesn’t make any sense. And in terms of being realistic about the length of time this transition will take and the variety of energy sources it might entail. And you know what? Better cheaper nuclear is like gotta be a big part of this. And it’s really important and we should double down on that.

Mean, if you look at the so called Inflation Reduction Act, which is primarily a climate build with some good stuff on containing prescription drugs, some the ACA and so on, the overwhelming amount of the money is for subsidizing and pushing and otherwise sort of moving in

that direction.

With wind and solar, and with electric vehicles. There’s comparatively little money for nuclear, CCS, geothermal, and so on. Though there is some money But,

you know,

the the weight is very clear in terms of the bill and what it’s proposing and what it’s pushing. And I think again, that that is not lost on on people. And and at the extent they understand and most of them don’t have only the Vegas to understand. What the democrats wanna do in this issue. It’s primarily, let’s have a lot more wind and so on, and let’s see what happens.

You know, I don’t see it as you know, the Democratic primary commitment is to making the technological breakthroughs that we’ll provide cheap, abundant, and reliable energy. And in the meantime keeping the grid functioning as smoothly and cheaply as it as it can and keeping your energy bills under control. That’s not what they hear. I think they hear Democrats are super committed to pushing wind and solar as fast and as far as they can. And you you know why they believe that?

Because it’s true. That is what Democrats are mostly committed to. That is mostly their the center of gravity of their views. It’s as I say, a quasi religion among wide sectors of the party. And I think it’s hard to dislodge.

But I think that As always, reality, it will be the, to some extent, the driver of some of this stuff. I’m not too sanguine about what’s gonna happen with the Energy crisis in general has been unfolding in Europe and and to some extent here, I think voters will react and they will speak. And then we’ll make it clear that, yeah, I get it. Yeah. You wanna do this green transition thing, but let’s be realistic here.

What I care about is how much it cost to fill up my car, how reliable my electricity is and what’s in my electricity bill. Unless you can assure me that that’s going to be under control, and not impinge on my living standards than or my job. Then I’m not with you. I’m not with you. So I think that is the fundamental and unavoidable political material reality that a lot of this stuff that Democrats are are fond of believing, seems to ignore.

So what’s the third leg? We’ve talked about culture Number one, the economy. Number two, what’s number

three coming? Number three is

yeah. I’m gonna write about this today. Democrats must embrace patriotism and liberal nationalism. In my view, the Democrats have done a very poor job of emphasizing their patriotic credentials and that they believe we’re one nation who can rise together and do great things together. Democrats have other framings.

They have a racial framing. We’re gonna be an anti racist nation. We have a climate change framing. We’re gonna, you know, save the globe. We’re gonna stop global warming.

We’re going to have this beautiful transition to renewable energy. But, you know, Democrats, if they really understood point too about, you know, we have to stand for growth. We have to stand for abundance. We have to stand for a better life for everybody. How is that going to be produced?

It’s going to be produced? By all of us. You know, so pulling together as Americans, we are all Americans regardless of our race, our gender, our ideology, what have you, and we can do great things. We’ve done it in the past. We could do it in the future.

We are one nation. We shouldn’t be afraid of being one nation together. And if necessary, by God, we’ve got to beat those Chinese to the punch. Right? I mean, we know they’re out there.

We know they’re values are different from us, and we we only want a strong growing nation that is a more than adequate competitor for rivals around the globe, particularly. China. So all of those things are very difficult for a lot of Democrats to say. They’re really leery about patriotism. They’re really leery about sort of covering up the fact that slavery was is part of the history of the United States.

There’s still racism around the day. They’re really leery of calling out of of being tough on China because isn’t that borderline racist. Now, Tim Brian knows better than that. Yeah. That’s one reason he’s doing better than expected in Ohio.

But Democrats need to send that message and send it loud and clear about the kind of party they are, the relationship, the patriotism, and nationalism that are far firming something we’re uncomfortable with, we embrace it. Because, you know, the Democratic program is fundamentally about making America fulfill its promise. You know, as Bill Clinton put it so well, There’s nothing wrong with America that can’t be fixed by what’s right with America. So I think Democrats should say that to themselves, you know, ten times a day until they feel comfortable with it.

Well, Wes

Moore in in Maryland is really running on that, isn’t he? He’s really running on aggressive patriotism. So that that would be a model that you would hold up to, hey, this this work. This is a fact of. Look at West Moore.

Yeah. Well,

I mean, it it is a a a point in its favor. I mean,

realistically,

that is a very blue state, and the candidate he’s running against isn’t very good. So But I think West Moore is maximizing his chances and his support by doing what he’s doing. And I think it would be great if some other candidates took the same approach, and we’d see what happens. I mean, we know from the public opinion data and just talking to, you know, ordinary people you might know. Americans are patriotic people.

They like the idea that we could do great things together and that we’re a great nation and You have, there has been a lot of dark parts of this nation’s history, but fundamentally, there’s been a lot of great parts too, and the great parts outweigh the bad parts. And especially the way we are today. We made enormous progress. Let’s, you know, let’s never stop fighting against what’s what’s wrong with America. But by God, let’s build in what’s right America and make make big things happen.

Let’s be patriotic. Let’s embrace that. You know, I applaud less more for doing this. I think it’s a brilliant approach And, you know, I think the results of the election, even allowing for the blueness of Maryland, perhaps provide some support for this approach. Ruvi is a senior fellow

at the American Enterprise Institute and co editor of the Substack newsletter of the Liberal Patrerit, and you can read his work there. Ruvi, to Shera, thank you so much for coming back on the podcast. Appreciate it very much. Thanks for having me. The Bowler podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with audio production by Jonathan Siri.

I’m Charlie Sykes, Thank you for listening to today’s co worker podcast. We’ll be back tomorrow and do this all over again.

You’re worried about

the economy. Inflation is high. Your paycheck doesn’t cover as much as it used to, and we live under the threat of a looming recession. And sure you’re doing okay, but you could be doing better. The afford

anything podcast explains the economy and the market detailing how to make wise choices on the way you spend and invest. Afford anything

talks about how to avoid common pitfalls, how to refine your mental models, and how to think about how how to think. Make smarter choices and build a better life. Afford anything wherever you

listen.