"Prosperity" is "Wealth"
So, the focus groups came back with a better word for Democrats
The Wall Street Journal is the perfect place to “test drive” centrist Democrat ideas.
Rahm Emanuel did it a few weeks ago. It was the first time I saw the words “wealth” used in the platform to win. Usually it is “affordability.” We know what I think of affordability. It is not a “hoax” like the President says, but he inarticulate for what he is trying to say. It covers up for the “old.” Affordability shorts the real issue. Wealth is more, it is aspirational, it is back to the American Dream.
To my surprise, buried in the “post-Christmas” dump, there is a piece about centrist Democrats, being the “establishment, and their fight back.
Essential points of the piece. Stop me if you have heard this before (readers who have been here since the Prop 50 conversations).
There is a revolution going on in the party.
The “left” has the energy and the centrists are viewed as the stodgy/boring part of the party, and the two are in potential conflict with one another.
They need to “sharpen elbows” and “say things honestly,” adopting a more “populist” tinge.
They need to focus on “prosperity.”
Ah, well, I think I have heard all these before. Sure, wealth is better defined as “prosperity.” We are a “rough draft” here, and rough drafts are refined?
The essence is what matters. Finally, someone is hearing it.
Someone is getting it. I am not totally crazy.
Here are a couple quotes to illustrate the points.
”Centrist politicians are expected to be evenhanded, staid and boring—they are the ones who bridge the extremes of their party and turn ideas into something that can get passed, leaving the loudest folks unhappy. But a crop of centrist Democrats, like Kelly, is increasingly deciding to dig in their heels and fight. These centrists aren’t just confronting Trump, they also don’t want to cede control over the party’s agenda to progressives who have typically been the ones with the louder microphone (emphasis added).”
Further:
”Centrists are also seeking to counter what they say is the left’s focus on social issues, including the topic of transgender women competing in sports, which centrists say has hurt Democrats in competitive races. This group has argued the party needs to stop ceding ground to Republicans on key issues like border security and law and order. They want the party to keep the focus on kitchen-table issues. Progressive have also campaigned on affordability.
To do that, centrists have become more willing to take on hardball tactics, adopt a populist tone and—in some cases—a resistance to compromise that liberal activists have been pushing for years. Increasingly, they are even distancing themselves from their own party.”
Then things go to the lack of desire to take risk:
”Ruben Gallego, Kelly’s fellow Arizona senator, said in an interview the party’s brand took a hit because when Democrats had power, they failed to take big swings. Democrats do a “gazillion checks and rechecks in making decisions. We basically kill momentum by process,” he said.”
Yup, be bold. We have said those words here. Be a leader.
And then the kicker, buried down in the story so as to not call direct attention to it, but the key point:
“Gallego, who won in Arizona after positioning himself as a centrist, isn’t embracing sweeping policy changes pushed by the left. He has been vocal about the need for his party to embrace a stronger approach on border security. He has also encouraged Democrats to talk about the economy in a way that emphasizes prosperity rather than equity.”
Prosperity. Wealth. Aspirational. Hmmm….
Wait, there’s more. For those who thought Prop 50 was about California, here is something we warned about.
“Still, progressive victories have been mostly in blue seats. Liberals have had victories pushing out more-moderate Democrats but have little success in winning competitive races (emphasis added).”
Yup. The real victors in Prop 50 are not the national D’s, but the left in California. I will continue to die on that hill (yes that is for you friend).
A lot of info in one article.
It is a test drive. How it lands will be studied and refined.
If it gains traction, watch the words start to find their way into the more Democratic mainstream publications like the New York Times, Washington Post, and others.
Just as an aside, I went into the Post to see if the concepts are starting to sprinkle.
Not yet. They are still on the “affordability train.” R’s are saying they need affordability but talking around it. D’s, particularly the Sanders-wing, are driving toward government-run solutions. What got me was this one quote.
“Now Warren and other Democrats are drafting their own affordability plans. Their ideas include helping home buyers with down payments. Last week, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) pitched Democratic senators at a closed-door lunch on expanding Medicare to cover dental, vision and hearing aids, Schumer said.”
Likely will not pass. Insurance is so 20th Century as we discussed here. The Progressives need to “refresh” their model or the Establishment needs to figure it out. For housing down payments, we have said similar words here, a “shared equity”model, built on the California Dream for All would fit the bill well.
Ideas are out there folks. Seems like maybe the discussions of Altadena are “elevating,” getting to the national conversation. We are test driving a lot of these concepts right here, right now. Keep talking. Keep pushing. Keep elevating.