Democrats unveiled their “Better Deal” plan on Monday, again demonstrating how crippling the impacts of the internal conflicts inflamed by the party’s 2016 presidential primary will continue to be.
The proposal has been described as a “populist” pitch to recapture hemorrhaging support from economically-disadvantaged workers who feel alienated by the party. But how far will that actually take Democrats? A Vox analysis by Jeff Stein explained how the plan’s tightrope-walking could still end up alienating people on both ends of the Democratic spectrum.
Centrists in the party may worry that this tactic risks making Democrats look like far-left ideologues, and argue that the party lost last fall because its leader was already seen as too far to the left for most voters.
And those closer to the Bernie Sanders (I-VT) wing of the party will charge that Democrats have still done little to shake their ties to elite donors and should much more firmly embrace universal programs, like a single-payer health care model and free college tuition for all.
By consolidating around Hillary Clinton in 2016, Democratic leaders enabled Bernie Sanders’ candidacy, igniting flames between the party’s establishment and progressive bases that continue to flicker long past the election. In fact, that fire burns deep in the far-Left “resistance” movement that’s sprung up in opposition to President Trump since November. Alienating those grassroots activists is a move that risks inviting an onslaught of controversy for the party establishment, just as Democrats are seeking to put on a united front.
How can the party craft an economic agenda that satisfies both camps, especially when one camp demands progressive purity and the other believes that’s exactly what’s losing elections?
As the Democratic Party seeks to promote its Better Deal in future months, these tensions will continue to be salient.
Emily Jashinsky is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.
