Opinion

Democrats must remain optimistic

By Will Kaback ’20

Tags opinion

Since his shocking victory on Nov. 8, President-elect Trump has done little to assuage the fear of racism, misogyny and xenophobia that characterized his campaign. We’ve been treated to a slew of cabinet nominees that seem to embody each tenet of the -isms and -phobias that trailed in the muddy wake of his relentless tromp to the White House. There’s the mind-numbing amount of conflicts of interest with his business and the Presidency, and who could forget his most recent “heroics” with the Carrier Corporation in Indiana, wherein he traded government incentives in return for the domestic retention of less than half of Carrier’s jobs? What a fine precedent set forth by the so-called “business president.” 

The impassioned calls to “give the man a chance” have faded rather quickly after his latest Twitter rant bemoaning Alec Baldwin’s portrayal of his, ahem, Twitter antics. Excuse me while I retreat to the warm embrace of Obama-Biden memes. But alas, I digress. As much as I would love to unleash the cacophony of shrill panic slowly building inside of me with each successive day, I must turn your attention to an altogether different beast: The Democratic Party. 

One of the most interesting subplots to come out of the election results has been the talks of chaos and demise surrounding the Democrats. From reports of infighting, to demands for new leadership, to the utter lack of a standard bearer outside of President Obama (as large as he may loom), it’s understandable that this narrative of discord and disorientation has developed. In the 24-hour span between Nov. 8 and 9, the Party went from the cusp of locking up the Presidency for a third straight term, retaking the Senate and controlling the Supreme Court, to a smoldering assortment of confusion, fear and, most importantly, powerlessness. 

But I resist the idea that the Democratic Party is dead, or even that it needs a massive shakeup to remain relevant. The latter notion seems to have been the immediate reaction by Party leaders, characterized by a harsh rebuke of establishment figures and shift of influence towards the Warren-Sanders ideology of brash, progressive populism. In any election, win or lose, it’s important to evaluate what worked and what didn’t, and to make the necessary changes for the future. But what the Democrats seem to be hinting at is an obliteration of their structure and adoption of a far more populist image. I would argue that a knee-jerk reaction to the election is just about the worst thing they could do. I believe that patience, rather than immediate action, will be the key to rebalancing power in the government and ensuring that the Democratic Party’s progressive achievements are not destroyed by the imminent administration. 

The primary argument in the case for patience is relatively straightforward: demographics. Even prior to 2016, Republican leaders had begun to acknowledge the odds they were facing. Take Steve Munisteri, for example. As chairman of the Texas Republican Party from 2010 to 2015, he presided over GOP operations in what most consider one of the safest Red states in the country. Now, however, Munisteri is wary of a Republican “false sense of security,” and warns his party that a “seismic shift in demographics” could “turn [Texas] Democratic sooner than most people [think.]” 

The numbers back him up. In 2016, Trump won Iowa by a greater margin than Texas, and though the difference was small, it’s pretty incredible considering Obama won Iowa in 2008 and 2012. But Texas is rapidly urbanizing—it’s cities are growing, while the rural population dwindles. Republican support has decreased squarely in line with these changes. Cities like Dallas and Austin are solidly Democratic and growing, and Texas is now the 15th-most-urban state in the country. Furthermore, Asian Americans and Hispanics are the fastest growing minorities in the state, and will form a considerable (and largely liberal) voting block in future elections. Some analysts suggest that Texas could go Blue as early as 2024. 

America’s demographic landscape is changing before our eyes. On the whole, Republicans are getting older, whiter, and more religious, while Democrats are younger, more diverse and increasingly secular. You may be able to guess which group is more sustainable. Pew Research projects that whites will no longer hold a majority in the US population by 2065, with black, Hispanic, and Asian groups all seeing steady increases in their population share between now and then. States with homogenous voting bodies are rapidly losing relevance, and diversity looks to be perhaps the most important factor a state can have going forward. 

The Pew Research Center suggests that states like Iowa and Ohio, with overwhelmingly white voters, will become more and more Red, while states like Texas and Florida, with growing immigrant and minority populations, will shift to Blue. As easy as it is to call for the end of the Electoral College after Hillary Clinton’s popular vote victory, this system will be hugely beneficial to Democrats if the current demographic trends hold steady. Texas stands to have around 40 electoral votes after the 2020 census. Combine that with New York and California’s equally large totals, and the Republicans are staring at a long uphill battle to even come close to 270. 

Placed in the context of 2016, these trends are a Democrat’s dream. Even though Hillary Clinton disappointed with minorities compared to Obama in 2012 (she lost ground with every group), the discrepancy remains stark. Black people voted Democratic 88-8, Hispanics 65-29, and Asians 65-29, according to the New York Times’ exit polls. These are the same voting blocks that are gaining influence with each successive election and an overperforming Republican candidate lost by 36 points with the closest group. Given Trump’s rhetoric, the Republican Party’s history and all that stands to happen in the next four years, it’s hard to imagine the GOP making up any of that ground. In fact, Trump could do permanent damage to the Party’s image in the eyes of minority groups, so much so that those aforementioned margins actually widen for years to come. 

Given what we know about changing US demographics, I am more and more inclined to agree with Van Jones’s election night analysis that Trump’s victory was a “whitelash.” Whether they are conscious of it or not, the 2016 election might have been the Republican Party’s (and their largely white voting base’s) last chance to win under their current structure and image. The result is horrifying, but also explainable, and also not cause for despair, as I myself did in this paper in the days after the election. The next four years are nothing to celebrate, and a projected advantage going forward is no reason to allow Trump and his party to do their bidding, but we must also consider the longer term. 

Why make drastic changes when the current system is a recipe for success going forward? Of course, the Democrats made mistakes in 2016, and those need to be addressed, but not to the degree some are proposing. And just how sustainable is the proposed populist shift? Hillary won the popular vote after all, and while it’s easy to speculate as to whether or not Bernie Sanders would have won were he the nominee, there’s little solid evidence to back up either side. 

What exactly does a populist shift entail? The recurring narrative I’ve heard is that the Democrats “left part of America behind.” True, Trump did bring a sizeable new group of mostly white, uneducated and rural voters to the polls for the first time. But should Democrats really prioritize this unstable, often irrational faction over the reliable, ever-the-more important support and concerns of minorities of all kind? I’d be much more inclined to let Trump default on all the promises that garnered him support in the first place, while remaining a Party that values all people and continues to fight for progressive values. The Democrats should, as always, make an effort to reach out to disaffected groups, but if that means favoring the kind of voters Trump brought out over minority voices, they would be making a fatal mistake. 

The shock of the 2016 election has prompted many Democrats to call for an extreme response to an extreme event. The first notable action by some Party figures in response has been to rally behind Keith Ellison as he seeks to become the new DNC chair. As a constituent of Ellison’s who proudly voted for him this year, I can promise that he is not “extreme” in any sense of the word (as his detractors have brayed), but there’s also no denying that he would represent a tangible shift in the image of the Party away from that of the Debbie Wasserman-Schultzes and Hillary Clintons of the world. Perhaps this is for the best, but just because the Democrats are experiencing a potential change in leadership doesn’t mean they should shift away from what has worked and what will continue to work. 

As Republicans hop on board the Alt-Right Express in droves, Democrats should fight to remain a party that welcomes moderates like West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, establishment figures like Nevada’s Harry Reid, and independent progressives like Vermont’s Bernie Sanders, not to mention rising stars like California’s Kamala Harris and the cool-headed leadership of New Jersey’s Cory Booker. 

Patience is a virtue, yes, but it is also trying like no other when staring eye to eye with a demagogue. As hard as it may be to resist the temptation to lash out in response to Trump’s election, perseverance will prove to be the true trump card. Knowing what lies ahead, especially in terms of demographics, Democrats should embrace their current image, tweaking where necessary, and sally forth towards the next four years with determination and optimism. Don’t let Trump’s extremism ooze across the aisle. Stay committed to core values. Remember whose voice matters. 

All Opinion