The center-left offers an alternative to both the left and the Democratic “establishment.” But it’s losing influence — and struggling to define itself.
It just increasingly feels like the Democrats learned absolutely zero lessons from the 2020 Presidential primary. The new “should we have open borders” will be “do you want Israel to exist?” And then 70% of the country will be sitting there wondering what this has to do with them.
Hyperbole aside, the real problem for the center is that they will expect this answer to be 'No' when the answer will be some variation of, and I'm calling my shot now:
"Israel deserves to exist as much as Palestine, But Netanyahu is a War Criminal who fooled a president with dementia into a war your paying for at the pump. We cannot support that any longer."
That answer is one that will spark a lot of outrage on the right,
but on the left and even in libertarian circles will have people silently nodding.
It's also the type of gish-gallop that's a mine field to argue through. You dismantle one point of contention, it just opens up the next line of attack.
Your answer to the Israel existence question - "Israel deserves to exist as much as Palestine, But Netanyahu is a War Criminal who fooled a president with dementia into a war you're paying for at the pump. We cannot support that any longer." - is very similar to what Rahm Emanuel is saying, and one which I think a majority of Democrats (and possibly Independents) can agree on.
It's also an unworkable solution. Deep down inside, Israelis know that the Palestinians do not want Israel to exist, nor do their supporters. Withdrawing aid is one thing, demolishing the state is another entire thing. But that's deep down what most pro-Palestine supporters want. The reason the center left is flailing is because they've outsourced all of their organizing apparatuses to progressives. The ethnic communities that used to elect them have been replaced with middle class agnostic college graduates with beliefs that put them at odd with the general public, even if they reflect the cultural institutions they arose in. I don't think its something with a quick resolution.
I don't know about all this "deep down inside" stuff!! They shout it out; they assemble in large crowds to call for the violent end of Israel (and the U.S). They act on it; that's why there is a war against Gaza. They promote this point of view successfully to young Americans too ignorant to be able to find Israel or Gaza or Iran on even a labeled map.
I love diagramming sentences; I even bought a book on it a couple years ago.
I don't think diagramming sentences, however, or much else, in fact, is likely to help those violent, murderous Palestinians. Or their left-wing American imitators.
Deep down inside, 20% of the citizens in Israel are Palestinians or Arabs. Over 2 million people, with actual political parties and representation in the Knesset.
If you mean Gaza and/or West Bank, you should try to be specific, especially since you are using the concept to make claims about the position of "Israelis" and "Palestinians".
Try reading this again "Deep down inside, Israelis know that the Palestinians do not want Israel to exist, nor do their supporters".
Other than that, if you want an informed opinion you might read a little more. You might be surprised by what the Palestinians actually think, both inside and outside Israel.
That answer will not satisfy those on the far far left, nor the right, but that’s fine. Keep it on between the 50 yard lines and keep it short is the best strategy.
They don't need to. To be blunt, as much as the DSA and I are enemies I learned to respect them a decade ago and I do count friends in their numbers. They don't want the kooky left, they instead what to (and a quote here), "remind the centrists what they gave up for nothing in return."
Which, honestly, I trust the DSA more than a trust the GOP right now.
*AND I'M A F***ING LIBERTARIAN!*
(In my defense, the GOP are now communists, but STILL....)
and I don't think they'll want to alienate the centrists with such a statement.
Biden also played the game they wanted, and I have reason to believe they will be smarter in round two so less 'memeable college girl screaming at you' and more 'swave good looking men telling you to do it because it's the right thing to do', So they'll want to try and rebuild Biden's reputation in the long term like the Republicans have tried with Nixon.
Given that the Democratic party never advocated for open borders, what exact lesson are you suggesting?
That the Democratic party should somehow figure out how to stop Fox News and Republicans from lying?
For the record, Biden deported more people than Trump's first term, and the number would have been much higher if the process for reviewing asylum claims had been properly funded instead of being blocked by Republicans in Congress.
The debates in 2020 saw almost all of the candidates arguing in favor of totally decriminalizing border crossings. Joe Biden was the only one to express discomfort with the idea. Because it is crazy.
Alas, we will be paying for the 2024 primary for a generation. "Donald Trump is obviously unfit so let's let our freak flag fly and have twenty (!) candidates run as far and as fast leftward as they can", welp.
My roots are center right, and while I have more right than left in me, I'm politically homeless. One of my kids--more progressive than I am—demanded to know who I voted for in the last election. I said neither of these two fuckers. Please, please, please. Let's just have a center [anything] without corruption and with silent leadership so that I don't have to wake up every day and wonder WTF just happened while I was asleep. Trump is not the end of the world. It might be the end of the R party, but life will go on. I think one of our biggest challenges as a country is that we have too much time and money to do stupid shit instead of focusing on what matters. I don't WANT a war or an economic catastrophe, but those kinds of things clear your thinking and sort out the wheat from the chaff. I grew up in Guatemala w/o running water or electricity or plumbing. I'm a US citizen and grateful for it. This is still an amazing country, with serious issues. And those issues are led by both parties. Let's start being reasonable people, okay?
I think the two-party system is too entrenched for this to be the end of the Republican Party. If the D and R parties could survive the major shifts of the 20th century, such as the Democrats becoming the party of civil rights instead of Southern segregationists, I don't see any reason why the parties couldn't survive Trump.
Absolutely. The US made a huge error in emptying the Parties of an ability of who can get on their Brand and now both are open to capture by bolshevik minorities (in an almost literal sense)
as an ex-R I experience daily horror at R party nodding along with Trumpian basically state socialism...
The problem in Maine wasn't the Democratic Party's strength, it was their judgment. They chose someone who was not interested in running, who clearly was not up for the fight, and who voters rightfully regarded as too old for the job at a time when that's seen as disqualifying.
If Dem leadership had made a better pick, you could have had a real fight over who was the better choice. Instead Mills just gave up and went home.
I don't understand why this isn't talked about more. Everyone gives the GOP shit (rightfully) for propping up the corpse of Mitch McConnell, but Dem voters were supposed to be happy to choose between a party-appointed 80yo first-time Senate candidate and the ex-Nazi rapist? Nah, fuck that noise.
Look at what's happened in Australia. Preferential voting has led to the wealthy conservative enclaves (Romney-Clinton districts, effectively) leaving the increasingly MAGA-adjacent conservative coalition and switching to "teal" independents.
"Teal" meaning a mix of blue (economic liberalism) and green (environmentalism). So, "I don't really like unions or high taxes, but I do want a clean environment and clean, efficient government."
The traditional conservative coalition has been almost wiped out, left with only rural areas and a few middle-class exurbs.
As Nate points out, the statewide first-past-the-post system you have in the U.S. is causing uncomfortable bedfellows, such as abundance (pro-growth) centrists and burn-it-down soak-the-rich socialists. That will work in opposition, but not at all in power!
I relate to being politically homeless. I tend to support positions assigned to or claimed by the left but I've been known to support positions associated with the right. frankly, one of the things that annoys me most is the requirement that everything be forced into a box labeled left, center or right. It used to be okay to think outside of the box within either party but now people don't trust you if you do.
We have many significant issues to address: the desperation of too many I see daily in the face of income inequality, corruption is unbridled in every institution we once respected, Mother Earth (environment) has a vote…unknowable challenges that aren’t looking good for anyone. Nice article but I think many are seeking solutions to these and a host of other ISSUES. Many of us feel terms like “center”, left, liberal, etc. are irrelevant; exampled by the article itself. In fact, a group not mentioned, status quo Dems, will struggle to find a home…because they offer nothing.
My point here is that issues and real solutions matter: we’ve done this, successfully I think, before when the extremes were destroying us, for example, American Revolution, Reconstruction and the New Deal. What is missing are the proposed list of “solutions”…because leadership is still wandering in the desert, unable to articulate a coherent plan of action built on a an acceptable level of consensus. We have been down this road before…bumpy, greed taming and elites giving ground before the pitch forks are readied (mine is ready to go). When there is little to be lost people find a way, this is called motivating by this old cowboy.
I think we just need a major world war akin to WWII or economic catastrophe beyond the Great Recession before people come to their senses. Until then I’m not really sure what will get things back on track
WWII DID fix the Great Depression, and probably was meant to. (IMO) When there is a lot of unemployment (dissatisfaction?) one way to fix that IS to send the young men off to die far away, or come back older and changed, at least. War works.
That "take" was not at all casual; I've recognized that the U.S. (and the European countries as well!) used WWII as a way out of the catastrophe of the Great Depression for decades. And it did work ---- After WWII both the United States and European countries, including Germany, took a huge bounce up in terms of economic welfare.
War leads to tremendous progress in technology which is promptly transferred to civilian use --- radar is the first example I can think of. The distraction (from communism, from hatred of government, etc.) of war, especially with the young men being conscripted and sent to other countries, could hardly be more impressive.
I am always wary that war may be seen as a convenient political "out" for any powerful politician who gets into trouble with the voters. That didn't happen in WWI (Wilson was forced into going to war) or now with Iran, which was a more impulsive attack against the Iran nukes. But it's always worth watching for.
I’m new to this and appreciate your comment. I grew up on our family’s remote cattle ranches. Everyone has value, not everyone is good but everybody deserves a chance and a hand up. Greed is the devil.
Nate, you are making things harder for yourself than they need to be. I think you've misidentified your 'centre-leftism' when comparing to the various European groupings. You (and other members of the centre-left) would be classic social democrats, who believe in a capitalist, largely private and market-driven economy and a substantial welfare state, which acts to: guarantee people's rights; pay for universal services and projects like healthcare, education, infrastructure, and pensions; redistribute wealth and income to some degree. European liberals (the German Free Democratic Party, for example) are often centre-right parties rather than centre-left ones, on the argument that property rights are as sacrosanct as rights to free speech, etc. As for relations with the 'Left' as you identify it, it's confused by the fact that much of the American left thinks of itself in identity politics terms (what you would call 'woke') rather than in the established terms of the socialist Left, where economic inequality, and unequal access to political power, are the defining issues (which gets called 'populist' in the States!).
Surely what should count are the actual political and economic arrangements you want to see put in place, rather than the existence and flourishing of a labelled group. Just make alliances with the DSA, the Democratic establishment, etc., when you have common ground and fight them when you don't. But I'd say that means arguing for the actual positions you hold, rather than claiming your group is more pragmatic, rational, or whatever. Everyone thinks they're pragmatic (what you might class as Greens or socialists think their proposals are the pragmatic ones; it's not about 'idealism', it's about what might actually work in, say, negotiating the climate crisis or taming the power of the tech bros). Liberalism is an important, valuable intellectual and political tradition, but it isn't the centre-left. Ah, sorry I've gone on for so long.
This was a good read. I won't post all of them here, but I spent time answering those 12 questions. I consider myself somewhat of a blend between center-right traditional conservatism but with a bit of a libertarian bent on foreign policy and some social issues.
As I went through the questions, I identified a few major themes to my answers:
1. Lean into your brand. Be the adults in the room, support technocratic ideas, be okay with terms like "technocracy", "good government", and "classical liberalism".
2. Be willing to work with members of both parties that support your platform, and similarly be ready to loudly reject far-left members of the DSA who are a threat to democracy as much as the MAGA right. "Vote blue no matter who" just means you're a partisan Democrat that reads Slowing Boring with your morning coffee.
3. Be prepared to actually argue and provide evidence to support your policy positions.
4. Be willing to admit that the Democratic establishment has delivered very poor results in places like California and Illinois. Borrow from Democrats and Republicans that have done things well (education reform in deep red Mississippi has been wildly successful as have housing reforms in blue Colorado).
5. Pick your battles and focus on the ones that unite (housing affordability, reducing inflation, improving infrastructure, and increasing public safety). The "how" will differ, but everybody ultimately wants those things. There are certain other issues like abortion where people are simply locked in and there are no policy arguments to be had. Leave those issues to referenda or the state/local level (i.e. don't force Massachusetts policies on Nebraska).
This was a good set of answers. Stick with your brand because things come back around and counter reactions happen makes sense to me. I'd focus on good governance, figuring out how to build, adjusting public sector worker pensions to prevent bankruptcy, and focusing on economic growth is the way to go.
My premise is that the DSA wave will crest and its failures will be manifest. Angry dems will shift their votes because this isn't really leader based movement like MAGA. In my view the DSA is much more dangerous because it has a real ideology but it's less likely to win over time because that ideology will fail so badly.
Nate invented a taxonomy, because he loves a good neologism so he is always trying to make up words for concepts he has found to be interesting.
Then he positioned an invented category in the center of the universe and proceeded to pretend that he can solve the issues facing the Democratic from the warped prism of his invention.
He brought no data about why this specific list of issues are the important ones. The closest thing is the Yale Youth Poll, but for people who self identify as "extremely liberal" the actual variance is pretty small, and there is pretty solid alignment on the top and bottom 10 items. Sure the actual order is different, but what really is the impact of a few slots up or down in the ranking.
So Nate's "center left" is a subset that is unbounded by actual constraints.
Then he provides a collection of essay questions about this synthetic construct.
The gap between now and when Clinton was elected is longer than the gap between when Clinton was elected and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed lol
I think you're spending too much time and space on classifying groups of people that aren't always or even actual groups or clusters or cohorts... Many DSA successful elections really had to do with primary elections in deeply blue areas...that have little to do with general elections...I'd be more interested in an analysis of the Michigan primary...and more importantly in the Michigan general.... for Senator...
The overall concept of the center-left becoming politically homeless certainly resonates with me, but I also I think Nate is WAY too focused on categorizing people into neat groups (a bit ironic considering his valid criticisms of Woke-ism).
The first election i could vote in was 2000 and I voted for Gore but i didn't think of it at the time as an existential choice. The biggest thing I remember about it was he was "the pro-environment" guy, which was appealing to my 21 year-old self. But i honestly wasn't very politically engaged.
9/11 happened 4 months after I graduated college, and the political fallout (the rapid implementation of the Patriot Act, the villification of Muslims, and Bush's Iraq War fabrications and subsequent torture scandal, etc) very quickly changed that and I've been on the left side of the spectrum ever since. My wife and i both volunteered for Obama's campaigns and due to life circumstances, and despite its many flaws, the ACA has been an absolute financial lifesaver for our family.
Trump is an absolute nightmare IMO and nothing will ever change my mind about that. I think Biden is a decent man and was an ok POTUS, but he should have had the wisdom to not seek reelection, and the 2024 campaign was a total disaster overall.
All thar for a bit of context on my current thoughts about the center-left. My personal view (since we all have them) is the center-left stands for steady economic, cultural, and technological growth and a fundamental concern with fairness and respect for other humans in general. It's about incremental change towards a more equal society, not a revolutionary philosophy.
We are about the most financially average people in America- our household income was almost exactly the US median last year. We have savings and retirement accounts, but we also don't have children and, even if we wanted them, it would be economically ruinous for us, and that's a HUGE problem for our country! Middle-class people should be able to raise a family without working multiple jobs and never actually getting to see their kids! Daycare costs are fucking insane, housing is fucking insane (we couldn't afford to live in our suburban county if my wife hadn't bought an affordable townhouse 25 years ago), electricity costs are going up constantly (cause of these data centers that no actual human i've ever met actually wants), gas is back up over $4 here again today!!!
Overall, the past 10 years at least has been treading water in good times and falling behind in bad times.
All that's to say that hell yeah I'm angry! For me, personally, the center-left (among others) not only failed to stop Trump's rise to power, but more importantly, they've failed at their most basic mission of stability and increased prosperity. I'm now at the point where i WANT radical change because shit is just so damn broken.
I'm not sure who the next Democratic standard-bearer should be, but it absolutely cannot be another version of the milquetoast, focus-tested, afraid to talk like an actual human being bullshit that we've seen recently.
I do NOT want a Dem version of Trump but i want a fighter and an actually good communicator.
On 1. I've been frustrated on the center-left making electability arguments against the DSA types as opposed to "no actually this is better policy. Capitalism works".
On 2. The liberals should not accept the democratic establishment if it becomes progressive. We should start our own power. DSA types are just as dangerous as MAGA.
On 4. Capitalism has been resoundingly successful if you look globally. So many people lifted out of poverty in my lifetime. This has come at some cost to some segments of the US population, but the real discussion here I think is nationalism, not whether capitalism is insanely effective. Should we prioritize American workers economic well being over global workers well being? I say obviously no, we should prioritize the global poor first.(though no politician should ever say this lol)
It is frustrating not just that Capitalism works, but DSA types have allowed Trump's vision of America to be their definition of America, and ignore the actual successes and idealism that worked better.
The only pushback I have is I don't think the DSA is as dangerous as MAGA. When Trump got power he really did ban Muslims immediately. He really is having ICE shoot people who disagree with him. When AOC got power she tried to govern, when Mamdani got power he focused on running the city well. Theyve been more moderate and competent than MAGA. I dont care for their style but I dont hate their substance.
He was sending the national guard to blue states and cities in a way that seemed as if trying to provoke a confrontation, and then sent ICE to similar cities and states where they did in fact shoot people who were protesting them. He notably didnt send them to cities with many immigrants that are in red states, like Miami or Houston.
At worst it is reductive, which I did to save some space. But it is very much not a lie. He sent armed federal agents and troops in a confrontational manner to either embarrass or provoke his political opponents and they very much did shoot protesters who did not pose a threat to them.
Capitalism works for the center left even if it leaves progressives in the dust. The right doesn't even oppose capitalism on the merits, it opposes it because it disempowers conservative institutions and hierarchies.
I mostly agree with you here. Capitalism has performed miracles when it comes to lifting people out of poverty. It's genuinely amazing how much better the lives of the global poorest have become, thanks in large part to the free market. I think many of the socialist policies the DSA champions, like rent freezes, are bad policy that will backfire and lead to weird and unequal outcomes (though I do not agree that the DSA is as bad as Trump).
In my view, however, capitalism's biggest issue is that it has never been good for animals (or the environment).
For example: 99% of all the chicken in the grocery store, regardless of whether or not it's labelled as "free range," comes from chickens bred to grow so big that walking is painful and many spend the last weeks of their lives sitting in their own poop. Yes, capitalism has made some OK fake meat alternatives available, but if you want to buy chicken, you pretty much have to buy very inhumane chicken - there's no choice. The companies have no incentive to switch to a more humane breed, because it would push the price of chicken up by a few cents a pound. Overall, life for farm animals has gotten much worse since the industrial revolution, which makes me think this is an issue with the modern free market and not some kind of weird edge case. When it comes to animals, capitalism has failed.
I don't believe communism would be any better for animals (it would just be the government abusing them instead of companies). However, it does seem to me like a compelling case for more government regulation. There are incentives in capitalism to treat your workers well. There are no incentives, as far as I can tell, to treat animals well. Someone needs to create these incentives.
"Should we prioritize American workers economic well being over global workers well being?"
Of course we should, if "we" are Americans. Apparently you are not, so you don't. That sentiment is an effort to globalize the world economy, which is essentially the same as the "no borders" claim. Let the whole world stream in here, say the socialists, and grossly overcrowd and take over America; and then take all the money earned by American billionaires through their amazing technological progress and throw it all away to the poor and incompetent of the world. Thus killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
A lot of interesting stuff here, but without settling on a definition of center-left it's hard to bring the questions into focus. So I'll content myself with a few nit-picks. The quarter-pole of the 21st century is 50 years in the future--as a sports-betting Substack should get right. Blockbuster peaked in 2004, not the 1990s, Clinton probably 1996/97 with welfare reform, re-election, the Balanced Budget Act; but before Lewinski (however, oddly, his Gallup high in 73% came in December 1998, after he had been impeached).
The meaningful comparison to 53% who say Democrats are too far to the left is not the 8% who say they are too far to the right; but the 47% who say Republicans are too far to the right. There is a gap, but 6%, not 45%.
84,000 primary voters should be divided by Democrats eligible to vote, not 750,000 population. It's likely over 20%, still a minority, but not 11%.
The Yale poll should show standard errors. It likely had under 200 extremely liberal respondents, each of whom saw only a few pairs of the 30 issues, not all 435 possible matchups. For example, at a guess 40 people might have been asked about Israel/Palestine at all, and paired with a random selection of the other issues. The 45%--18 who ranked Israel/Palestine higher--is a highly uncertain estimate of what all voters would say asked about all possible pairs.
The decline in moderates is real but old news--most happened in the Bill Clinton/George W. Bush/Obama years. Since Trump, it's been flat.
I'm starting to think that more Dems should be silent on the Israel - Palestine conflict. Say the situation is tenuous and that US policy has to be fluid, but US values do not. Then refer to basic rights to live safely and freely, indicting both sides and don't commit to how we will react in advance. Since most Americans wonder why we're investing so much in the region, indicate that we can't protect those that don't really want protection, implying that Bibi is a wild card.
The questions are good, but I think the center left and the left need to unite around a strategy to actually do something material for the non rich. Forget about reversing all of Trumpism, as it's clear that there is too much support for much of that agenda. Instead, build support for a domestic vision with key, immediate impactful improvement and make it clear that a congressional majority is necessary to make it happen. Then do it fast and save the restoration of norms for later in the term. Avoid division by actually doing something material. Had Trump done something positive for his public economically, he would be unstoppable.
Dems can't be silent about Israel. Their own base won't allow it. Simply taking money from AIPAC is disqualifying, but go ahead and take whatever $$ you can from any Islamic group. It is the Dems and their supporters who are making the rules here.
I've given up describing anyone by their position on a simplistic left-right axis. Clearly we're not debating whether to execute the King of France ... you give some of the variants, and the range of views and approaches to policy is much more complex than a single dimension. My own policy views have much in common with Democratic Socialists (with some exceptions and nuance), but my approach to decision making is decidedly conservative - I don't like the idea of reflexively pushing for extreme change without careful consideration, and I want to be open to dialog and compromise with others. My favorite candidates have those qualities - an ability to work collaboratively, even with those you disagree with, while having strong support for "left" positions such as public funds benefiting the whole population, and not just the very wealthy.
Was Obama center left? Whatever he was seems to still be quite popular, was more pppular than Trump, Clinton, Biden or Harris with swing voters and more than popularity he was almost certainly the best president most voters could ever cast a ballot for (the median voter was 18 in 1992). Obviously things have changed in the last ten years but whichever group can authentically embrace his vision of America - patriotic, liberal, multicultural, idealistic but above all else competent in a way nobody else has been close to since 9/11 - I dont care what they call themselves but I'd enthusiastically vote for them.
I like this question. Rephrased, if Obama2 appeared and ran for president (same as Obama just a different person so they can run again at the same age as before), would the "Obama coalition" still exist? Or is the world too different and Obama2 would fail?
I just don’t get why the center left doesn’t steal some of the Dsa lefts thunder on Palestine. It doesn’t really hurt them electorally with swing voters and lets them triangulate other positions (I feel the same way about transgender rights because as a friend to many trans people i think it’s a moral litmus test but it’s a little more of an electoral hindrance with swing voters)
ive been an anti Zionist Jew for 20 years and its crazy how these arguments haven’t been updated at all in that time despite the fact that they don’t convince anyone besides that one republican uncle. Even the left is figuring out that identity politics, cancel culture and political correctness to bully people into agreeing with you doesn’t really work as a persuasion tactic. To their strategic credit, aipac has realized that all of their money goes further when they highlight non-israel issues rather than calling insurgent leftist primary challengers antisemetic.
Maybe send every swing vote on a highly sexualized propaganda trip instead.
I don't think the Left has figured out that cancel culture and political correctness and such doesn't work: I realized this morning with the newest spate of Epstein media carry-on that this is the current bullying of whomever the left can catch (too often their own, but they persevere) and condemn for ever saying hello to long-dead Epstein. Same deal with the anti-Israel sliming. And anything ICE. Next week they'll be weaponizing liking AI, which will tank me, for one. Oh, and don't forget making money: anyone who makes money in America now should be, according to the "progressives," grist for Madame Guillotine's mill.
If you find this analysis interesting I'd recommend looking at the trajectory of the Liberal Party in Australia as a possible signpost. Their founding principles fit squarely in the above "liberal" characterisation, albeit they are classed as a party of the right in a 2 party system with an opposing centrist party with origins in the trade union movement to its left. In absolute terms, I think the Liberal Party maps quite closely to the "center-left" described here.
Historically, it was an unreconciled alliance with a more nationalist right wing element and an urban elite base. Both these factions have largely split off ("Teal" independents to the elite left and "One Nation" nationalist anti-immigration populist right). The remaining party has completely imploded in terms of approval ratings in a short space of time, despite being the natural opposition party to a relatively unpopular technocratic centre left government. The 2 party system in Australia was resilient for many decades until very recently.
Conclusion being, the changes described here are potentially profound, don't have easy answers and could result in political ruptures that would seem unthinkable in relatively short order.
The disintegration of the mainstream conservatism in Australia has been astonishing to watch.
And it's been very much asymmetrical - the centre-left Labor party has grabbed the middle ground of politics and has a massive majority.
The right cannot keep itself together even in a preferential voting system and inside a coalition.
One big difference is immigration - there are essentially no uncontrolled refugee arrivals to Australia, and a bipartisan position to keep it that way. Without that issue to run on, the right side of politics is casting around for a reason to exist.
The Liberal Party being a party of the right is because historically, the political coalitions shook out along economic lines, with the philosophical liberals aligning with the more numerous conservatives/tories against the political forces associated with trade unionism.
> Silver Bulletin is the only newsletter in the U.S. politics Top 10 classified as non-partisan by independent researchers.
I disagree with their conclusion- looking at the top 10 list, I would also designate The Free Press as non-partisan, though the other top-10ers are most decidedly partisan.
And the coverage here is usually coming from a perspective inside of the Democratic party and outside of the Republican party. There was a lot of inside-baseball around things like Biden and Harris, in a way that there hasn't really been for the Republican side of the aisle.
Not a criticism personally, and there's not really "pro-Democratic" advocacy like those researchers might have been looking for, but it's still the primary perspective.
Talking about centrist liberalism (I agree with other commenters that centre-left and liberal are not a clean fit in European or US politics), I think the interesting example internationally is Macron. Obviously the French system is its own thing but he has largely destroyed the traditional parties of government, leaving his brand of centrism as the only alternative to hard left or hard right politics. It’s a gamble we haven’t seen play out yet.
But aren't hard left and hard right parties ALL that are left in European countries and here? Macron may still be standing, barely, but Britain has succumbed, and so have we. And the next leader in France is likely to be Marine Le Pen or her handsome delegate. The centers have hollowed out all over, I think.
That’s a more pessimistic view than I would take. Yes, centrist, social democratic and Christian democratic governments are embattled all over Europe, but they are still in government.
In Britain (where I live), the populist right seem to have stalled recently and it seems like a majority of voters are prepared to vote tactically against them. I’m not an expert in French politics, but I suspect that the next election will come down to who makes it onto the second round with Le Pen, with some flavour of centrist giving the anti-RN forces the best chance.
The US is kind of an unusual case as a rich democracy with a populist right government. Obviously a big and important exception but an exception nonetheless.
It just increasingly feels like the Democrats learned absolutely zero lessons from the 2020 Presidential primary. The new “should we have open borders” will be “do you want Israel to exist?” And then 70% of the country will be sitting there wondering what this has to do with them.
Hyperbole aside, the real problem for the center is that they will expect this answer to be 'No' when the answer will be some variation of, and I'm calling my shot now:
"Israel deserves to exist as much as Palestine, But Netanyahu is a War Criminal who fooled a president with dementia into a war your paying for at the pump. We cannot support that any longer."
That answer is one that will spark a lot of outrage on the right,
but on the left and even in libertarian circles will have people silently nodding.
It's also the type of gish-gallop that's a mine field to argue through. You dismantle one point of contention, it just opens up the next line of attack.
Your answer to the Israel existence question - "Israel deserves to exist as much as Palestine, But Netanyahu is a War Criminal who fooled a president with dementia into a war you're paying for at the pump. We cannot support that any longer." - is very similar to what Rahm Emanuel is saying, and one which I think a majority of Democrats (and possibly Independents) can agree on.
That's what I was gonna say--I basically agree with this stance, and I've been basically pro-Israel, pro-two-state-solution my entire life up to now.
Yeah but Rahm is not going to capture anything. To establishment cable news vision to me. But hey. Maybe I'm wrong
It's also an unworkable solution. Deep down inside, Israelis know that the Palestinians do not want Israel to exist, nor do their supporters. Withdrawing aid is one thing, demolishing the state is another entire thing. But that's deep down what most pro-Palestine supporters want. The reason the center left is flailing is because they've outsourced all of their organizing apparatuses to progressives. The ethnic communities that used to elect them have been replaced with middle class agnostic college graduates with beliefs that put them at odd with the general public, even if they reflect the cultural institutions they arose in. I don't think its something with a quick resolution.
I don't know about all this "deep down inside" stuff!! They shout it out; they assemble in large crowds to call for the violent end of Israel (and the U.S). They act on it; that's why there is a war against Gaza. They promote this point of view successfully to young Americans too ignorant to be able to find Israel or Gaza or Iran on even a labeled map.
You are confusing a portion of the people in Gaza and West Bank with all Palestinians.
Click on the links.
And the actual subject of the original sentence was "Israelis". I know diagramming sentences is passé, but it actually helps sometimes.
I love diagramming sentences; I even bought a book on it a couple years ago.
I don't think diagramming sentences, however, or much else, in fact, is likely to help those violent, murderous Palestinians. Or their left-wing American imitators.
Nope, but diagramming helps understand what people actually say.
And my point is that there are plenty of Palestinians who are not River to the Sea loons, and there are plenty of Israelis who know this fact.
Deep down inside, 20% of the citizens in Israel are Palestinians or Arabs. Over 2 million people, with actual political parties and representation in the Knesset.
If you mean Gaza and/or West Bank, you should try to be specific, especially since you are using the concept to make claims about the position of "Israelis" and "Palestinians".
He clearly meant what he said. And he was correct. The Palestinians -- including 20% of the citizens of Israel -- in fact do not want Israel to exist.
What's your point with your first paragraph?
He didn't say what you seem to think.
Try reading this again "Deep down inside, Israelis know that the Palestinians do not want Israel to exist, nor do their supporters".
Other than that, if you want an informed opinion you might read a little more. You might be surprised by what the Palestinians actually think, both inside and outside Israel.
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2025/06/03/israeli-public-is-increasingly-skeptical-about-lasting-peace/
https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-895781
What do you mean, he didn't say what I seem to think?
What am I missing in "Deep down inside, Israelis know that the Palestinians do not want Israel to exist, nor do their supporters"?
How do you think I'm misinterpreting it?
That answer will not satisfy those on the far far left, nor the right, but that’s fine. Keep it on between the 50 yard lines and keep it short is the best strategy.
They don't need to. To be blunt, as much as the DSA and I are enemies I learned to respect them a decade ago and I do count friends in their numbers. They don't want the kooky left, they instead what to (and a quote here), "remind the centrists what they gave up for nothing in return."
Which, honestly, I trust the DSA more than a trust the GOP right now.
*AND I'M A F***ING LIBERTARIAN!*
(In my defense, the GOP are now communists, but STILL....)
Is this Canadian football now?
If you want to be spicier, you can say "...fooled 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 with dementia..."
I mean, Biden told him no so it's a harder case,
and I don't think they'll want to alienate the centrists with such a statement.
Biden also played the game they wanted, and I have reason to believe they will be smarter in round two so less 'memeable college girl screaming at you' and more 'swave good looking men telling you to do it because it's the right thing to do', So they'll want to try and rebuild Biden's reputation in the long term like the Republicans have tried with Nixon.
Given that the Democratic party never advocated for open borders, what exact lesson are you suggesting?
That the Democratic party should somehow figure out how to stop Fox News and Republicans from lying?
For the record, Biden deported more people than Trump's first term, and the number would have been much higher if the process for reviewing asylum claims had been properly funded instead of being blocked by Republicans in Congress.
The debates in 2020 saw almost all of the candidates arguing in favor of totally decriminalizing border crossings. Joe Biden was the only one to express discomfort with the idea. Because it is crazy.
Alas, we will be paying for the 2024 primary for a generation. "Donald Trump is obviously unfit so let's let our freak flag fly and have twenty (!) candidates run as far and as fast leftward as they can", welp.
I fear 2028 will actually be worse.
Treating improper border crossing as a civil issue instead of criminal is not radical.
It is exactly how first offenses are treated.
And surprise surprise, these people are deported through a civil process.
Making it criminal is more costly and ineffective.
My roots are center right, and while I have more right than left in me, I'm politically homeless. One of my kids--more progressive than I am—demanded to know who I voted for in the last election. I said neither of these two fuckers. Please, please, please. Let's just have a center [anything] without corruption and with silent leadership so that I don't have to wake up every day and wonder WTF just happened while I was asleep. Trump is not the end of the world. It might be the end of the R party, but life will go on. I think one of our biggest challenges as a country is that we have too much time and money to do stupid shit instead of focusing on what matters. I don't WANT a war or an economic catastrophe, but those kinds of things clear your thinking and sort out the wheat from the chaff. I grew up in Guatemala w/o running water or electricity or plumbing. I'm a US citizen and grateful for it. This is still an amazing country, with serious issues. And those issues are led by both parties. Let's start being reasonable people, okay?
I think the two-party system is too entrenched for this to be the end of the Republican Party. If the D and R parties could survive the major shifts of the 20th century, such as the Democrats becoming the party of civil rights instead of Southern segregationists, I don't see any reason why the parties couldn't survive Trump.
I hope you're right. What we really need right now is STRONGER parties to keep out the Platner and Trump types.
Absolutely. The US made a huge error in emptying the Parties of an ability of who can get on their Brand and now both are open to capture by bolshevik minorities (in an almost literal sense)
as an ex-R I experience daily horror at R party nodding along with Trumpian basically state socialism...
The problem in Maine wasn't the Democratic Party's strength, it was their judgment. They chose someone who was not interested in running, who clearly was not up for the fight, and who voters rightfully regarded as too old for the job at a time when that's seen as disqualifying.
If Dem leadership had made a better pick, you could have had a real fight over who was the better choice. Instead Mills just gave up and went home.
I don't understand why this isn't talked about more. Everyone gives the GOP shit (rightfully) for propping up the corpse of Mitch McConnell, but Dem voters were supposed to be happy to choose between a party-appointed 80yo first-time Senate candidate and the ex-Nazi rapist? Nah, fuck that noise.
You are thinking Candidate Quality is an issue? You may have a point there --- [:-)
Look at what's happened in Australia. Preferential voting has led to the wealthy conservative enclaves (Romney-Clinton districts, effectively) leaving the increasingly MAGA-adjacent conservative coalition and switching to "teal" independents.
"Teal" meaning a mix of blue (economic liberalism) and green (environmentalism). So, "I don't really like unions or high taxes, but I do want a clean environment and clean, efficient government."
The traditional conservative coalition has been almost wiped out, left with only rural areas and a few middle-class exurbs.
As Nate points out, the statewide first-past-the-post system you have in the U.S. is causing uncomfortable bedfellows, such as abundance (pro-growth) centrists and burn-it-down soak-the-rich socialists. That will work in opposition, but not at all in power!
This. Totally agree
I relate to being politically homeless. I tend to support positions assigned to or claimed by the left but I've been known to support positions associated with the right. frankly, one of the things that annoys me most is the requirement that everything be forced into a box labeled left, center or right. It used to be okay to think outside of the box within either party but now people don't trust you if you do.
Yes. And the right is more accepting of left-flirtations than the opposite. This is where the left needs to change
We have many significant issues to address: the desperation of too many I see daily in the face of income inequality, corruption is unbridled in every institution we once respected, Mother Earth (environment) has a vote…unknowable challenges that aren’t looking good for anyone. Nice article but I think many are seeking solutions to these and a host of other ISSUES. Many of us feel terms like “center”, left, liberal, etc. are irrelevant; exampled by the article itself. In fact, a group not mentioned, status quo Dems, will struggle to find a home…because they offer nothing.
My point here is that issues and real solutions matter: we’ve done this, successfully I think, before when the extremes were destroying us, for example, American Revolution, Reconstruction and the New Deal. What is missing are the proposed list of “solutions”…because leadership is still wandering in the desert, unable to articulate a coherent plan of action built on a an acceptable level of consensus. We have been down this road before…bumpy, greed taming and elites giving ground before the pitch forks are readied (mine is ready to go). When there is little to be lost people find a way, this is called motivating by this old cowboy.
I think we just need a major world war akin to WWII or economic catastrophe beyond the Great Recession before people come to their senses. Until then I’m not really sure what will get things back on track
WWII DID fix the Great Depression, and probably was meant to. (IMO) When there is a lot of unemployment (dissatisfaction?) one way to fix that IS to send the young men off to die far away, or come back older and changed, at least. War works.
Not my favorite solution.
That's a bit awful to contemplate, honestly.
I worry that our living memory of the horror of world war has disappeared, causing takes that are very casual in discussing mass death.
That "take" was not at all casual; I've recognized that the U.S. (and the European countries as well!) used WWII as a way out of the catastrophe of the Great Depression for decades. And it did work ---- After WWII both the United States and European countries, including Germany, took a huge bounce up in terms of economic welfare.
War leads to tremendous progress in technology which is promptly transferred to civilian use --- radar is the first example I can think of. The distraction (from communism, from hatred of government, etc.) of war, especially with the young men being conscripted and sent to other countries, could hardly be more impressive.
I am always wary that war may be seen as a convenient political "out" for any powerful politician who gets into trouble with the voters. That didn't happen in WWI (Wilson was forced into going to war) or now with Iran, which was a more impulsive attack against the Iran nukes. But it's always worth watching for.
Not so fast…
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1060973776699011/?fs=e&s=TIeQ9V&fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e
Thank you for this post! Really appreciate you perspective about growing up elsewhere and thus having gratitude for what we have here
I’m new to this and appreciate your comment. I grew up on our family’s remote cattle ranches. Everyone has value, not everyone is good but everybody deserves a chance and a hand up. Greed is the devil.
Interesting --- I too wake up every morning and check the news to see if we're at war; well, we are, so now I see whether the war news is bad.
Yes I agree with this perspective but it needs to happen in a counter-cultural way
Nate, you are making things harder for yourself than they need to be. I think you've misidentified your 'centre-leftism' when comparing to the various European groupings. You (and other members of the centre-left) would be classic social democrats, who believe in a capitalist, largely private and market-driven economy and a substantial welfare state, which acts to: guarantee people's rights; pay for universal services and projects like healthcare, education, infrastructure, and pensions; redistribute wealth and income to some degree. European liberals (the German Free Democratic Party, for example) are often centre-right parties rather than centre-left ones, on the argument that property rights are as sacrosanct as rights to free speech, etc. As for relations with the 'Left' as you identify it, it's confused by the fact that much of the American left thinks of itself in identity politics terms (what you would call 'woke') rather than in the established terms of the socialist Left, where economic inequality, and unequal access to political power, are the defining issues (which gets called 'populist' in the States!).
Surely what should count are the actual political and economic arrangements you want to see put in place, rather than the existence and flourishing of a labelled group. Just make alliances with the DSA, the Democratic establishment, etc., when you have common ground and fight them when you don't. But I'd say that means arguing for the actual positions you hold, rather than claiming your group is more pragmatic, rational, or whatever. Everyone thinks they're pragmatic (what you might class as Greens or socialists think their proposals are the pragmatic ones; it's not about 'idealism', it's about what might actually work in, say, negotiating the climate crisis or taming the power of the tech bros). Liberalism is an important, valuable intellectual and political tradition, but it isn't the centre-left. Ah, sorry I've gone on for so long.
This was a good read. I won't post all of them here, but I spent time answering those 12 questions. I consider myself somewhat of a blend between center-right traditional conservatism but with a bit of a libertarian bent on foreign policy and some social issues.
As I went through the questions, I identified a few major themes to my answers:
1. Lean into your brand. Be the adults in the room, support technocratic ideas, be okay with terms like "technocracy", "good government", and "classical liberalism".
2. Be willing to work with members of both parties that support your platform, and similarly be ready to loudly reject far-left members of the DSA who are a threat to democracy as much as the MAGA right. "Vote blue no matter who" just means you're a partisan Democrat that reads Slowing Boring with your morning coffee.
3. Be prepared to actually argue and provide evidence to support your policy positions.
4. Be willing to admit that the Democratic establishment has delivered very poor results in places like California and Illinois. Borrow from Democrats and Republicans that have done things well (education reform in deep red Mississippi has been wildly successful as have housing reforms in blue Colorado).
5. Pick your battles and focus on the ones that unite (housing affordability, reducing inflation, improving infrastructure, and increasing public safety). The "how" will differ, but everybody ultimately wants those things. There are certain other issues like abortion where people are simply locked in and there are no policy arguments to be had. Leave those issues to referenda or the state/local level (i.e. don't force Massachusetts policies on Nebraska).
This was a good set of answers. Stick with your brand because things come back around and counter reactions happen makes sense to me. I'd focus on good governance, figuring out how to build, adjusting public sector worker pensions to prevent bankruptcy, and focusing on economic growth is the way to go.
My premise is that the DSA wave will crest and its failures will be manifest. Angry dems will shift their votes because this isn't really leader based movement like MAGA. In my view the DSA is much more dangerous because it has a real ideology but it's less likely to win over time because that ideology will fail so badly.
There is a survey tool built into the Pew categories.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/quiz/political-typology/
You can see where you fit in among 10k other folks, not just in Nate Silver's fever dreams.
"fever dreams"? What do you disagree with?
Nate invented a taxonomy, because he loves a good neologism so he is always trying to make up words for concepts he has found to be interesting.
Then he positioned an invented category in the center of the universe and proceeded to pretend that he can solve the issues facing the Democratic from the warped prism of his invention.
He brought no data about why this specific list of issues are the important ones. The closest thing is the Yale Youth Poll, but for people who self identify as "extremely liberal" the actual variance is pretty small, and there is pretty solid alignment on the top and bottom 10 items. Sure the actual order is different, but what really is the impact of a few slots up or down in the ranking.
So Nate's "center left" is a subset that is unbounded by actual constraints.
Then he provides a collection of essay questions about this synthetic construct.
Yawn.
Very nice. I particularly liked your number 4 points.
> You could argue about whether Bill Clinton counts as “modern”.
I read this footnote, then I withered into a toadstool and died.
The gap between now and when Clinton was elected is longer than the gap between when Clinton was elected and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed lol
Fake News
Wow.
And yet, culturally we keep nostalgically reliving the nineties.
That 70s Show was only twenty years out of date at the time of release!
I think you're spending too much time and space on classifying groups of people that aren't always or even actual groups or clusters or cohorts... Many DSA successful elections really had to do with primary elections in deeply blue areas...that have little to do with general elections...I'd be more interested in an analysis of the Michigan primary...and more importantly in the Michigan general.... for Senator...
Agreed 100%.
Even though it pains me deeply that Mike Duggan, a center left candidate bounced to protect lame D candidate Jocelyn Benson.
I was really hoping for a crazy 3 horse race.
The overall concept of the center-left becoming politically homeless certainly resonates with me, but I also I think Nate is WAY too focused on categorizing people into neat groups (a bit ironic considering his valid criticisms of Woke-ism).
The first election i could vote in was 2000 and I voted for Gore but i didn't think of it at the time as an existential choice. The biggest thing I remember about it was he was "the pro-environment" guy, which was appealing to my 21 year-old self. But i honestly wasn't very politically engaged.
9/11 happened 4 months after I graduated college, and the political fallout (the rapid implementation of the Patriot Act, the villification of Muslims, and Bush's Iraq War fabrications and subsequent torture scandal, etc) very quickly changed that and I've been on the left side of the spectrum ever since. My wife and i both volunteered for Obama's campaigns and due to life circumstances, and despite its many flaws, the ACA has been an absolute financial lifesaver for our family.
Trump is an absolute nightmare IMO and nothing will ever change my mind about that. I think Biden is a decent man and was an ok POTUS, but he should have had the wisdom to not seek reelection, and the 2024 campaign was a total disaster overall.
All thar for a bit of context on my current thoughts about the center-left. My personal view (since we all have them) is the center-left stands for steady economic, cultural, and technological growth and a fundamental concern with fairness and respect for other humans in general. It's about incremental change towards a more equal society, not a revolutionary philosophy.
We are about the most financially average people in America- our household income was almost exactly the US median last year. We have savings and retirement accounts, but we also don't have children and, even if we wanted them, it would be economically ruinous for us, and that's a HUGE problem for our country! Middle-class people should be able to raise a family without working multiple jobs and never actually getting to see their kids! Daycare costs are fucking insane, housing is fucking insane (we couldn't afford to live in our suburban county if my wife hadn't bought an affordable townhouse 25 years ago), electricity costs are going up constantly (cause of these data centers that no actual human i've ever met actually wants), gas is back up over $4 here again today!!!
Overall, the past 10 years at least has been treading water in good times and falling behind in bad times.
All that's to say that hell yeah I'm angry! For me, personally, the center-left (among others) not only failed to stop Trump's rise to power, but more importantly, they've failed at their most basic mission of stability and increased prosperity. I'm now at the point where i WANT radical change because shit is just so damn broken.
I'm not sure who the next Democratic standard-bearer should be, but it absolutely cannot be another version of the milquetoast, focus-tested, afraid to talk like an actual human being bullshit that we've seen recently.
I do NOT want a Dem version of Trump but i want a fighter and an actually good communicator.
On 1. I've been frustrated on the center-left making electability arguments against the DSA types as opposed to "no actually this is better policy. Capitalism works".
On 2. The liberals should not accept the democratic establishment if it becomes progressive. We should start our own power. DSA types are just as dangerous as MAGA.
On 4. Capitalism has been resoundingly successful if you look globally. So many people lifted out of poverty in my lifetime. This has come at some cost to some segments of the US population, but the real discussion here I think is nationalism, not whether capitalism is insanely effective. Should we prioritize American workers economic well being over global workers well being? I say obviously no, we should prioritize the global poor first.(though no politician should ever say this lol)
It is frustrating not just that Capitalism works, but DSA types have allowed Trump's vision of America to be their definition of America, and ignore the actual successes and idealism that worked better.
The only pushback I have is I don't think the DSA is as dangerous as MAGA. When Trump got power he really did ban Muslims immediately. He really is having ICE shoot people who disagree with him. When AOC got power she tried to govern, when Mamdani got power he focused on running the city well. Theyve been more moderate and competent than MAGA. I dont care for their style but I dont hate their substance.
That's just a lie - Trump is not "having ICE shoot people who disagree with him."
He was sending the national guard to blue states and cities in a way that seemed as if trying to provoke a confrontation, and then sent ICE to similar cities and states where they did in fact shoot people who were protesting them. He notably didnt send them to cities with many immigrants that are in red states, like Miami or Houston.
At worst it is reductive, which I did to save some space. But it is very much not a lie. He sent armed federal agents and troops in a confrontational manner to either embarrass or provoke his political opponents and they very much did shoot protesters who did not pose a threat to them.
Capitalism works for the center left even if it leaves progressives in the dust. The right doesn't even oppose capitalism on the merits, it opposes it because it disempowers conservative institutions and hierarchies.
Why do you say the right opposes capitalism?
I mostly agree with you here. Capitalism has performed miracles when it comes to lifting people out of poverty. It's genuinely amazing how much better the lives of the global poorest have become, thanks in large part to the free market. I think many of the socialist policies the DSA champions, like rent freezes, are bad policy that will backfire and lead to weird and unequal outcomes (though I do not agree that the DSA is as bad as Trump).
In my view, however, capitalism's biggest issue is that it has never been good for animals (or the environment).
For example: 99% of all the chicken in the grocery store, regardless of whether or not it's labelled as "free range," comes from chickens bred to grow so big that walking is painful and many spend the last weeks of their lives sitting in their own poop. Yes, capitalism has made some OK fake meat alternatives available, but if you want to buy chicken, you pretty much have to buy very inhumane chicken - there's no choice. The companies have no incentive to switch to a more humane breed, because it would push the price of chicken up by a few cents a pound. Overall, life for farm animals has gotten much worse since the industrial revolution, which makes me think this is an issue with the modern free market and not some kind of weird edge case. When it comes to animals, capitalism has failed.
I don't believe communism would be any better for animals (it would just be the government abusing them instead of companies). However, it does seem to me like a compelling case for more government regulation. There are incentives in capitalism to treat your workers well. There are no incentives, as far as I can tell, to treat animals well. Someone needs to create these incentives.
"Should we prioritize American workers economic well being over global workers well being?"
Of course we should, if "we" are Americans. Apparently you are not, so you don't. That sentiment is an effort to globalize the world economy, which is essentially the same as the "no borders" claim. Let the whole world stream in here, say the socialists, and grossly overcrowd and take over America; and then take all the money earned by American billionaires through their amazing technological progress and throw it all away to the poor and incompetent of the world. Thus killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
A lot of interesting stuff here, but without settling on a definition of center-left it's hard to bring the questions into focus. So I'll content myself with a few nit-picks. The quarter-pole of the 21st century is 50 years in the future--as a sports-betting Substack should get right. Blockbuster peaked in 2004, not the 1990s, Clinton probably 1996/97 with welfare reform, re-election, the Balanced Budget Act; but before Lewinski (however, oddly, his Gallup high in 73% came in December 1998, after he had been impeached).
The meaningful comparison to 53% who say Democrats are too far to the left is not the 8% who say they are too far to the right; but the 47% who say Republicans are too far to the right. There is a gap, but 6%, not 45%.
84,000 primary voters should be divided by Democrats eligible to vote, not 750,000 population. It's likely over 20%, still a minority, but not 11%.
The Yale poll should show standard errors. It likely had under 200 extremely liberal respondents, each of whom saw only a few pairs of the 30 issues, not all 435 possible matchups. For example, at a guess 40 people might have been asked about Israel/Palestine at all, and paired with a random selection of the other issues. The 45%--18 who ranked Israel/Palestine higher--is a highly uncertain estimate of what all voters would say asked about all possible pairs.
The decline in moderates is real but old news--most happened in the Bill Clinton/George W. Bush/Obama years. Since Trump, it's been flat.
I'm starting to think that more Dems should be silent on the Israel - Palestine conflict. Say the situation is tenuous and that US policy has to be fluid, but US values do not. Then refer to basic rights to live safely and freely, indicting both sides and don't commit to how we will react in advance. Since most Americans wonder why we're investing so much in the region, indicate that we can't protect those that don't really want protection, implying that Bibi is a wild card.
The questions are good, but I think the center left and the left need to unite around a strategy to actually do something material for the non rich. Forget about reversing all of Trumpism, as it's clear that there is too much support for much of that agenda. Instead, build support for a domestic vision with key, immediate impactful improvement and make it clear that a congressional majority is necessary to make it happen. Then do it fast and save the restoration of norms for later in the term. Avoid division by actually doing something material. Had Trump done something positive for his public economically, he would be unstoppable.
Dems can't be silent about Israel. Their own base won't allow it. Simply taking money from AIPAC is disqualifying, but go ahead and take whatever $$ you can from any Islamic group. It is the Dems and their supporters who are making the rules here.
Not supporting Israel is disqualifying, whether you're silent or not.
Ummmm, wait ---- Trump IS unstoppable, looks like to me.
I've given up describing anyone by their position on a simplistic left-right axis. Clearly we're not debating whether to execute the King of France ... you give some of the variants, and the range of views and approaches to policy is much more complex than a single dimension. My own policy views have much in common with Democratic Socialists (with some exceptions and nuance), but my approach to decision making is decidedly conservative - I don't like the idea of reflexively pushing for extreme change without careful consideration, and I want to be open to dialog and compromise with others. My favorite candidates have those qualities - an ability to work collaboratively, even with those you disagree with, while having strong support for "left" positions such as public funds benefiting the whole population, and not just the very wealthy.
Was Obama center left? Whatever he was seems to still be quite popular, was more pppular than Trump, Clinton, Biden or Harris with swing voters and more than popularity he was almost certainly the best president most voters could ever cast a ballot for (the median voter was 18 in 1992). Obviously things have changed in the last ten years but whichever group can authentically embrace his vision of America - patriotic, liberal, multicultural, idealistic but above all else competent in a way nobody else has been close to since 9/11 - I dont care what they call themselves but I'd enthusiastically vote for them.
I like this question. Rephrased, if Obama2 appeared and ran for president (same as Obama just a different person so they can run again at the same age as before), would the "Obama coalition" still exist? Or is the world too different and Obama2 would fail?
Get rid of your bloody term limits!
I just don’t get why the center left doesn’t steal some of the Dsa lefts thunder on Palestine. It doesn’t really hurt them electorally with swing voters and lets them triangulate other positions (I feel the same way about transgender rights because as a friend to many trans people i think it’s a moral litmus test but it’s a little more of an electoral hindrance with swing voters)
I just looked it up and it’s also popularist! Ending aid/arms sales to Israel actually polls pretty well.
Aside from an anti-Israel position being morally wrong, antisemitic, and bad policy, it would definitely hurt them with swing voters.
You really think supporting trans rights is more of an electoral hindrance with swing voters than supporting terrorists? That's very cynical...
ive been an anti Zionist Jew for 20 years and its crazy how these arguments haven’t been updated at all in that time despite the fact that they don’t convince anyone besides that one republican uncle. Even the left is figuring out that identity politics, cancel culture and political correctness to bully people into agreeing with you doesn’t really work as a persuasion tactic. To their strategic credit, aipac has realized that all of their money goes further when they highlight non-israel issues rather than calling insurgent leftist primary challengers antisemetic.
Maybe send every swing vote on a highly sexualized propaganda trip instead.
I don't think the Left has figured out that cancel culture and political correctness and such doesn't work: I realized this morning with the newest spate of Epstein media carry-on that this is the current bullying of whomever the left can catch (too often their own, but they persevere) and condemn for ever saying hello to long-dead Epstein. Same deal with the anti-Israel sliming. And anything ICE. Next week they'll be weaponizing liking AI, which will tank me, for one. Oh, and don't forget making money: anyone who makes money in America now should be, according to the "progressives," grist for Madame Guillotine's mill.
If you find this analysis interesting I'd recommend looking at the trajectory of the Liberal Party in Australia as a possible signpost. Their founding principles fit squarely in the above "liberal" characterisation, albeit they are classed as a party of the right in a 2 party system with an opposing centrist party with origins in the trade union movement to its left. In absolute terms, I think the Liberal Party maps quite closely to the "center-left" described here.
Historically, it was an unreconciled alliance with a more nationalist right wing element and an urban elite base. Both these factions have largely split off ("Teal" independents to the elite left and "One Nation" nationalist anti-immigration populist right). The remaining party has completely imploded in terms of approval ratings in a short space of time, despite being the natural opposition party to a relatively unpopular technocratic centre left government. The 2 party system in Australia was resilient for many decades until very recently.
Conclusion being, the changes described here are potentially profound, don't have easy answers and could result in political ruptures that would seem unthinkable in relatively short order.
The disintegration of the mainstream conservatism in Australia has been astonishing to watch.
And it's been very much asymmetrical - the centre-left Labor party has grabbed the middle ground of politics and has a massive majority.
The right cannot keep itself together even in a preferential voting system and inside a coalition.
One big difference is immigration - there are essentially no uncontrolled refugee arrivals to Australia, and a bipartisan position to keep it that way. Without that issue to run on, the right side of politics is casting around for a reason to exist.
The Liberal Party being a party of the right is because historically, the political coalitions shook out along economic lines, with the philosophical liberals aligning with the more numerous conservatives/tories against the political forces associated with trade unionism.
> Silver Bulletin is the only newsletter in the U.S. politics Top 10 classified as non-partisan by independent researchers.
I disagree with their conclusion- looking at the top 10 list, I would also designate The Free Press as non-partisan, though the other top-10ers are most decidedly partisan.
And the coverage here is usually coming from a perspective inside of the Democratic party and outside of the Republican party. There was a lot of inside-baseball around things like Biden and Harris, in a way that there hasn't really been for the Republican side of the aisle.
Not a criticism personally, and there's not really "pro-Democratic" advocacy like those researchers might have been looking for, but it's still the primary perspective.
If you look at this link (from the SB article) it says FP is on the right.
https://www.chaoticera.news/substack-data?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Yeah, I just take issue with that label- the publication is pretty heterodox, as is this one.
Talking about centrist liberalism (I agree with other commenters that centre-left and liberal are not a clean fit in European or US politics), I think the interesting example internationally is Macron. Obviously the French system is its own thing but he has largely destroyed the traditional parties of government, leaving his brand of centrism as the only alternative to hard left or hard right politics. It’s a gamble we haven’t seen play out yet.
But aren't hard left and hard right parties ALL that are left in European countries and here? Macron may still be standing, barely, but Britain has succumbed, and so have we. And the next leader in France is likely to be Marine Le Pen or her handsome delegate. The centers have hollowed out all over, I think.
That’s a more pessimistic view than I would take. Yes, centrist, social democratic and Christian democratic governments are embattled all over Europe, but they are still in government.
In Britain (where I live), the populist right seem to have stalled recently and it seems like a majority of voters are prepared to vote tactically against them. I’m not an expert in French politics, but I suspect that the next election will come down to who makes it onto the second round with Le Pen, with some flavour of centrist giving the anti-RN forces the best chance.
The US is kind of an unusual case as a rich democracy with a populist right government. Obviously a big and important exception but an exception nonetheless.