Shape of Parties To Come

Today, the two parties in the electorate and in government represent distinct coalitions of voters largely mirroring something of a split with an ostensibly more liberal party (Democrats) and a conservative party (Republicans). But they are not uniformly aligned along an axis of ideology (I don't believe that the parties ever have been). There is not a progressive or liberal party quite like there is a conservative party. And ideological differentiations in the electorate and in those who make up government are shifting, as per demographics, geography, and socio-economic characteristics. Running through this really takes a lot more analysis and writing to cover thoroughly.

But consider this proposition in thinking about the developing contours of American politics over the next 25 years, especially in the context of the coming civil war of sorts in the GOP (whether or not they get what the civil war should be fought over - hint to the GOP: it's not tactics, it's strategy; and no one is - and god willing, will be - buying your current strategic political program):

(Note: I use ideological labels as in popular usage - this is to say that "true conservative" has little meaning outside of the contemporary definitions of conservatism...balanced budgets are not inherently an ideological proposition, they take on ideological character only the context of current economic situations and choices of priorities. Same deal with foreign affairs activity.)

The GOP will become a party marked by socio-cultural conservatism and foreign affairs militarism (as if they aren't already). Some older guard business and wealth elites will cling to the party and eventually fade away. The uniform coalition of economic royalist conservatives, socio-cultural conservatives, and foreign affairs conservatives is and has been breaking up and it will cleave in the near future.

The Democratic party (note: lower-case "p," please people!) will become a party of socio-cultural liberals, foreign affairs liberals, and business elites. The working class and unionists, holding other characteristics constant, will lean towards the Democrats.

None of this seems revelatory - but my point is that this will become the dominant narrative as these contours become written very large. There will be a disconnect between ideology and party in that the former has multiple axes (and perhaps two dimensions) while the latter is only bi-directional on one axis. What remains to be seen is if this trending continues. What will predict it is the performance of the Democratic party in government. Will they govern as progressives or liberals, or will they govern as center-right-ish "moderates," making false choices and neglecting the political economy of politics and economics both.

As always, remember that parties and ideology are not one and the same (as noted above, both in terms of axes and dimensions) and that party is not Party.

My project: build a stronger Party while at the same time working to create a more progressive party. I believe that both must include integration of consideration of political economy of class, universalist policy, and economic justice. If this is successful, the party contours as noted above, to say nothing of the ideological contours un-discussed, will be totally wrong in appraising reality.

Why the "P" (or "p") In Democratic _arty Matters

The combination of the words "democratic" and "party" gets tossed around a lot as an essentially interchangeable concept, no matter how one treats the "p" in "party" as modifying "Democratic." But that's incorrect, and worse, it does a disservice to our discussion of progressive politics and American politics in general.

Political scientists who study parties and American politics in general usually look at 'parties' per se as three entities (and I'll just refer to the Democratic (P/p)arty here, not any others really). One is the Democratic Party proper, the party organization itself. For example, I am involved in my local and state Democratic Party organizations as an activist and as an officer. I pay my dues, I raise money, I volunteer for Democratic candidates and the party itself, I attend meeting...etc. The second version of parties is "party in government," as in the elected and appointed leaders in government (legislative and executive branches) who identify as and are elected as "Democratic" candidates. For example, my Congresswoman, the fabulous Tammy Baldwin, is a Democratic member of the U.S. House and caucuses with the other Democrats there. Finally, there is the "party in the electorate," which is a much more complex concept.

The Democratic party - and here, one does not capitalize the "p," as is usually the case with party-in-government too - is, like all parties-in-the-electorate, a combination of Democratic-identifying voters (including those who register as such, and in some cases these folks are part of the Democratic Party), Democratic-identified interest groups and organizations, and the voters that support a Democratic candidate in a given election. The Democratic party as a party-in-the-electorate is an aggregation and generally a coalition of individuals and organizations that is without a concerted program or teleology - it just is as a grouping.

So when people make reference to the "Democratic party," the intent of their words really matters, especially when we consider criticisms, normative statements, and the like. My general frame of reference, as a party leader in terms of the party-as-organization, is that folks are referring to the party organization. I subconsciously move directly to that when people say "Democratic party," and I have to check myself if that's not what they mean.

I'll speak to this more in the future, but I just want to lay out that the Democratic Party and the Democratic party are distinct conceptual constructs. One is very firm - you can go visit the office of your local party organization, you can give money to the party (and you should!), you can receive mail from the party organization, you can...well, you get the picture. But one cannot say with intellectual coherence, "The Democrats should ______" because unless you're speaking about the party organization (and I believe that one can do so in this kind of statement, as in "The Democrats should put together a concerted, strategic campaign to build membership."), you are not referring to a particular decision-maker or set of decision-makers who have the ability to implement what one is suggesting.

Democratic Party does not equal Democratic party, and that distinction is critical.