yeah, besides that it's necessary for winning (and winning is necessary), another reason to let people with some shitty views inside the tent is that we're more likely to persuade them to a different view if we're both in there together
Or, and this is maybe the most important part, it might turn out that you misunderstood their point of view and their views aren't as shitty as you originally thought.
I hope the people who are always attacking you (Matt) from the left will read this piece in good faith: attentively, all the way through, registering the arguments on their merits.
As for the vexed issue of biological males in women's sports, there's a good reason so many Americans and even Democrats oppose it. The spectrum reaches from people who are literally transphobic, in the true sense of phobic, to people who have given the matter conscientious thought and concluded that it just doesn't make sense -- or justice -- to pit natal females against competitors with the advantages of natal males. Including that second set of people in the Democratic coalition is not even a question of including bigots (which, as you argue, is also necessary).
The women's sports situation is a classic example of political discourse completely flattening any nuance in a complicated situation. If your a trans girl who is medically transitioning you are banned from participating in sports, and you won't want to play mens sports because imagine being the one trans girl in a boys locker room. I wouldn't want my child to go through that! So the result is they are prevented from engaging in an important socializing activity at a critical point in their life.
With all that in mind, it's easy to see why the parents of a trans kid might feel very strongly about this issue! Unfortunately it's hard to represent this nuance in a 15 minute online or phone poll.
One thing I applaud matt for is he wants a big tent in all directions, which means people on the left can be included to, and there are a lot of bad faith people out there whose version of a big tent is just kicking out everyone on the left who doesn't agree with them.
Thanks for your reply. One solution that has been suggested is the creation of leagues and classes of competition for transgender people. Meanwhile, there's nothing wrong with letting trans people demonstrate the wisdom to understand that their feelings and aspirations don't take precedence over other people's.
About those "whose version of a big tent is just kicking out everyone on the left who doesn't agree with them," if you tighten up the specification and make it people who want to kick out everyone on the far left who wants to control the party, I'm absolutely one of them. I make that argument every chance I get. The problem is that the leftists in question are not content to be included; they're intent on being the tail that wags the dog, and they've succeeded so well that they've become a mortal liability to the party. I'm a policy progressive (as opposed to an ideological progressive), and it drives me crazy to see the progressive cause driven into the ditch by people who think they have nobler things to do than win elections. What I'm trying to say is what I said after the 2024 election, below.
There aren't enough trans kids in most places to realistically form a league just for them.
I think it is more realistic to simply set some kind of standard that can be tested for reasonably affordably -- body composition and hormone checks -- and then let people who meet that standard play.
Worth noting: This is what real sports leagues do, at the highest levels. Not all leagues agree on the details, but that's fine. In some cases, people who were born and raised as women, but have some biological peculiarity, end up failing, as happened with Imane Khelif (who passed the standard for the Olympics, but apparently was rejected by the World Boxing organization). I don't believe anyone (aside from idiot right-wing bigots) has alleged she actually _is a man_ in any sense, but it's possible she has some other genetic peculiarity. (Which would hardly be surprising -- elite athletes almost by definition have unusual biology.)
The evidence suggests that Imane Khelif is genuinely intersex and has XY chromosomes with internal testes. An Algerian journalist somehow obtained a leaked report from Khelif's doctor saying as much, and it was published in a French publication.
Khelif initially claimed she would sue for defamation, but she never actually did despite likely being entitled to fairly substantial damages if she could prove the report was fabricated. She has also never released any medical records (not even a simple chromosome test) that could contradict the leaked report. I find it pretty hard to see that as anything other than a tacit admission.
Without taking the time to investigate this (because I honestly do not care one way or the other), I will just agree that if she's benefitting from the equivalent of being a woman on a regular does of testosterone, it is unfair for her to compete in the women's league. But again, the point is that there are objective things you can test for.
Even if she _did_ have internal testes, the question would be whether that was leading to her having blood testosterone levels outside the range of what's found in a broad population of women, and whether that's been sustained long enough to alter muscle density / body comp stats. If somebody that has testes is on T-blockers long enough -- _especially_ if they started before or only shortly after puberty -- the answer to that question is generally "no", and at that point it seems reasonable for them to compete in a women's league.
I agree that it's possible minimize the degree of disruption/potential unfairness created by trans women athletes with sufficient testing, but just advocating for testing isn't a sufficient answer because you have to decide what values will guide your threshold determinations.
I would argue that the test thresholds should be set such that the average trans woman permitted to compete will be no better at women's sports than she was at men's sports pre-transition (as determined by performance percentile rank). Any other threshold necessarily introduces sex-based unfairness, and the whole point of women's sports is to eliminate sex-based unfairness.
Everyone wants to be the one steering the ship. That's how politics works. If you can't beat them to get your hand on the steering wheel, that's on you, not them. Like when people complained that the primary was rigged against Bernie, Iv been consistent in saying that it doesn't matter, politics is about winning and there is no referee to give you points for being treated unfairly.
The NYC election is a great example of this. Zohran went from 1% to winning the primary, and likely now the general election by focusing on positive message cost of living big tent politics. He's keeping on Tisch, has constantly talked about how he is willing to work with people who disagree with him. He's doing the dirty messy work of coalition building to hold power in NYC while those opposed to him just sit around whining about how leftwing, anti-sematic, or whatever he is instead of building their own big coalition positive message.
If you don't want leftwing people in charge, then you need to offer a compelling alternative vision to them. A good start would be rallying around candidates that aren't hideously unpopular like Cuomo or Eric Adams are. Republicans made this same mistake with Trump, don't want your party captured by a compelling intrusive force? Gunna have to offer something more than a pile of wet blankets in response.
My thoughts on this changed from "who cares" to "oh, maybe this shouldn't be a thing" after hearing the opinions of (very progressive) female athletes who felt it was fundamentally unfair for a biological male to compete against biological women. There would not be a separate female category if there weren't significant sexual differences in athletic performance.
The 'pro' argument for transwomen in women's sports is that there aren't many of them competing at a high level. To me, that's an argument in favor of not allowing them - the handful of transwomen who want to play sports should accept that their unique medical situation means that they cannot participate in most competitive sports as their chosen gender. This sucks for them, but to prioritize the feelings of <100 people over millions of ciswomen athletes doesn't make sense to me.
We don't make everybody play basketball in wheelchairs so that paraplegics can be sure of always having enough members for their leagues. It sucks that the average paraplegic kid can't play high school basketball, but sometimes you just have to accept that the world can't always be fair to everybody.
It makes sense to have separate women's sports leagues to eliminate the single biggest source of sports-related unfairness. Adding trans women to women's sports has the potential to undermine that fairness-enhancing purpose that benefits half the population in exchange for creating a new fairness enhancement for a tiny segment of the population. It is entirely reasonable to think that we should be a very cautious about doing so.
The problem is that it's not really as simple as "oh they should just accept it at move on", that's a very easy sentiment to express if you have no interest in a sport yourself! But what if you are interested, maybe even passionate about it?
Middlebury college (A D3 school, so not exactly olympic level competition) kicked all trans women our of their womans sports programs, and one trans swimmer that was kicked out killed herself after being harassed.
I'm not opposed to having regulations and rules around D1/2 college + professional and Olympic competition, because thats most often when real actual top tier womans sports is actually in danger of being diminished, and that should be respected. I do however object to ruining the lives of trans athletes who just want to play a sport for the enjoyment of it.
“There is a world of difference between a political movement led by non-racists trying to exercise some restraint in how high it sets the bar and a movement willfully wallowing in bigotry.” really is a banger here!
I liked the analogy of Kamala Harris back then to scoldy teachers - and I guess I would compare Online GOP to 8th grader edgelords.
Classroom doesn’t like either so neither are winning formula and we need to get out of it!
I honestly don't think the "scoldy teachers" thing is entirely unfair with regard to the image that left-of-center America has embraced in the past decade, but I really don't think it's a fair description of Kamala Harris specifically.
I guess we can say she didn’t do a good job getting rid of those scoldy teacher impression but I think she at least didn’t take that approach explicitly
I generally agree with this, but I have a hard time understanding what it means in practice.
For example, I personally support trans women in women's sports, though I do think it is an issue on which people of good conscience can disagree. If I want to "grow the tent" on this issue, what should I do?
Should I:
1) Vote for Dem nominees who support trans sports bans?
2) Vote for Dem primary candidates who support trans sports bans over candidates who don't?
3) Not proactively post about this issue on Twitter?
4) Not responding to this issue on Twitter?
5) Actively campaign against it?
How should a politician or activist who supports it respond?
What if this were an issue on which I didn't think people of good conscience (or good intellegence) could agree?
I think it’s about deprioritizing it when election time comes and not necessarily shunning or condemning people who disagree with you, especially if they justify their position based on values you agree are essentially good
As a normal citizen, I'm cool voting for whomever the Dem candidate is, basically regardless, but should I be voting for the candidate for the nomination with whose views I disagree for the nomination?
As a candidate Harris didn't focus on trans issues in the election, but how should she have responded to debate questions? Or to ads claiming she supports trans women in sports?
Your last point is why I’m skeptical of “just don’t talk about your unpopular views”. Republicans will do everything they can to make a Democrats’ unpopular views salient, and ultimately politicians can’t control what voters care about.
I'm torn on this, because I do think that the Dems need to get more in line with the views and values of the median voter, but it's tricky thinking about how exactly you do that, especially when some of those views are bad.
I'm pretty good with moderating on trans women in sports because, while I support it, it's not a strongly held belief. But if, e.g., you told me that, to win back the middle, I should support not just a Dem nominee who is anti-vax,* but a candidate for Dem nominee who is anti-vax, or that I should go on twitter and start posting about how the anti-vax people have a point, I'm not sure I could do it, and I'm sure there are people who feel the same way about trans women in sports or any of the issues on which I amopen to moderating.
*I bring up anti-vax not because it's a likely issue on which Dems could get some mileage by moderating, but because it's an issue that is a bright line for me. If RFK Jr. had somehow become the Dem nominee in 2024, I would have had a hard choice, even with him up against Trump. (Of course, we wound up with the worst of both worlds on that one).
There are definitely hard cases. I think there are ways to thread the needle of signaling acceptance for people with anti-vax views without endorsing them or giving them real power.
For example, being anti-vax shouldn't be a deal breaker for things like speaking at the Democratic Convention, meeting with a Democratic president, or even serving in a Democratic administration in a role with no authority over vaccines. A future nominee could try to emphasize areas of agreement with the MAHA movement that aren't related to vaccines, and go on MAHA-friendly podcasts. RFK Jr. was a Democrat, and I think if the party had been more tolerant of him and his movement, as Obama was back in the day, maybe he never would have mounted a third party bid or allied with Trump. Feeling respected and included matters a lot to people, often as much or more than actual substance.
This goes beyond "don't talk about it". The candidate is honest about their views, but comes off as chill and tolerant and open to discussion. This is what Jared Polis did on pandemic and vaccine issues, for example, and he benefited politically without having to endorse any psuedo-science views himself.
I think antivax is an unusual case in that even 10 years ago virtually everyone understood that it was idiotic. So it’s not so much a case of enlightened elites not understanding the average person’s values and more of a malignantly stupid movement actively working to hurt people. Whereas with things like trans sports, there’s never been any kind of consensus around the Dem position.
I’d also distinguish between questions of values and questions of facts. If someone opposed school vaccination requirements on principled civil libertarian grounds without denying the entire field of immunology, I would vehemently disagree, but I would at least afford them some respect.
I think the point here is that it's an elite persuasion argument to push back hard against people who try to remove people with opposing views from the tent. I actually think the "I don't think this is a very important issue and I'm fine with different views on it" hits very differently if you're in a party which actually has people with diverse views on the subject. If you say that but then in actuality, you have complete uniformity which we all know is enforced by a strong taboo, no one will believe you
If the next dem presidential candidate says "There is a diversity of views on this even within my party, XYZ senators I like disagree on it, and that disagreement is fine.", that seems like it works a lot better to me than just saying you support a diversity of opinion in practice but not making clear that there are real people with real views you will actually tie yourself to
I think putting more thought into it than voting for whoever represents your views best in the available election is probably not healthy. This is why people ranked choice as well, so we don’t have to do calculations about who among the few we like best will be most appealing to others.
I don’t know how active you are on Twitter, but I suggest simply stating that while you support trans participation in sports, it’s not a dealbreaker for you. Elite Democratic opinion still seems downstream of Twitter. Or if a candidate gets dragged for transphobic views, say that they’re running in a very tough race, and we need to expand the tent.
I originally supported trans girls/women in women’s sports, but after seeing some striking examples of trans girls completely dominating, I strongly feel they should not be allowed. In one case, a high school freshman not only beat every senior on the track long jump, but set a state record. This isn’t just unfair to the girls competing in track and field that year. That record might now be out of reach for every girl who comes after.
I think it's helpful to separate voting from campaigning.
For voting, take some time to prioritize your personal list of issues and vote for candidates accordingly. That might mean choosing a candidate who's views on one or two particular issues diverge, but that's the best you can hope for in a representative democracy.
For issue campaigning, I have three basic takes:
1) Get off social media
2) Seek out people with differing opinions and talk to them face to face
3) This is the hardest and most important one: you'll be most persuasive to others if you are actively humble and open to changing your own mind.
It's definitely a hard pill to swallow. You could say "support only in situations where they can win" but even this, in our nationalized political environment, can have knock on effects by making Dems seem more radical by association.
Ideally we'd have multiparty proportional parliamentary democracy, and you could just let your elected MPs who closely represent your views do the coalitioning part. Unfortunately we don't have that so everyone needs to explicitly think about how their advocacy plays out in practice.
(E.g. I support something close to open borders, but I think I would not advocate any politician who professed my position)
When it comes to candidates for national office, I only consider their positions on economics and foreign policy. Since 2016, support for upholding the constitution and the rule of law are now my paramount concerns. I only consider social issues when voting for state and local candidates.
I think there are a couple of sociological forces behind left-wing tent-shrinking that we should also think about how to counteract:
1. Left wing intellectuals probably greatly underestimate the percentage of people who disagree with them, due to ideological social sorting. This is just the availability heuristic we are all subject to: we think "normal" is more like our own recent, in-person personal experience than it is. But a typical left wing intellectual's social experience consists entirely of groups where nearly everyone agrees on the hot button social issues of the day, and shunning and shaming *does* work in that kind of a supermajority-agreement context to marginalize dissenters-- so people get an understandable but mistaken intuition that it should work more broadly. Whatever we can do to break people out of that intuition is useful, but sadly I am not great at generating persuasive ideas for that.
2. There arguably, maybe, used to be a thing called "mainstream respectability" that had some real social value and that intellectual elites could deny to bigots by refusing to associate with them. When I have argued with people to my left about tent-shrinking, they usually argue that centrists' willingness to associate with bigots (not only political common cause but e.g. appearing on podcasts with them) is bad because it grants them this "mainstream respectability" thing. It seems obvious to me that in 2025 there is no longer any such thing and there will not be such a thing again in our generation. But again, I don't know how to convince people of this when they clearly have a lot invested in the notion that "mainstream respectability" does too exist and could be enforced if we only gatekept harder.
It's important to remember that the modern leftwing movement (such that it exists) is a very young one, both in literal age of it's members but also as a movement itself. The 80's and 90's was functionally a mass extinction event for the old new deal economic left and the social progressive left of the 60's and 70's.
So that leaves us with a left movement that really only started to first crawl in 2008 with the great financial crisis, and could not really articulate itself outside of general protest against the idea of "greed" and "the rich". Moving on after 8 years of obama it starts to walk finding it's voice with Bernie Sanders arguing for social democracy, that what was done during the obama presidency was necessary, but not sufficient.
Bernie in 2016 on social issues was much less radical than he would be in 2020, in large part because that moderation on social issues was an important aspect of the local politics he represented in Vermont. In 2020 he had to represent the left movement finally starting to run, and like any teenager it would make serious mistakes (if we can be left on economics, why not everything else?) as it found it's limits and learned.
Now here in 2025 onward if Zohran represents anything it's the leftwing movement that started all the way back in the obama years is finally maturing. Maintaining a focus on leftwing economics while moderating on policing, social issues, and language. He's made it very clear he is willing to work with people who disagree with him, and he's willing to hear everyone out.
that is a helpful reminder. In 2008 when obama was elected, california voted to ban gay marriage. a little over a decade later and a lot of lefitsts were asking the same people who only recently came around to "i guess two men can get married" to agree that biological sex was essentially meaningless and they were neanderthals if they didn't understand that.
The most recent manifestation of a successful coalition tent, in the words of Chris Rufo:
“It's still mystifying to me that there's a coalition of hardcore Islamists, drag queens, labor thugs, and democratic socialists that is on the verge of winning the mayoralty of the biggest city in the United States.”
Remember that broadening the tent need not mean tacking to the center or ceding power to the Right. If anything, it will take power away from them by deflating one of their most powerful arguments — that the left is a bunch of exclusionary, out-of-touch elitists who regard the rest of the country as deplorables.
You can still be a credible Democrat who is way left-of-center on, say, income redistribution and healthcare while being right of center on, say immigration and affirmative action. The critical theorist's greatest victory was convincing us that these issues are so tightly braided that they must stand or fall together. That certainly helped their more niche views get traction, but it alienated millions of normie liberals in the process. Politics is not uni-dimensional; there are several axes that matter. To broaden the tent, we must stop collapsing issues and people on to a single axis.
We must also stop conflating "people who hold deplorable or bigoted beliefs" with "deplorables and bigots." That is an incredibly damaging rhetorical move and is ironically part and parcel of the tent-narrowing that Matt so rightly descries. Resisting this collapse is important because it is the difference between leaving the door open for conversation with the person you want inside the tent and closing the door on them entirely. If you're at all familiar with the psychological literature on in-group bias, you'll know that Americans are actually far less prejudicial than most people on earth!
So, to that effect, while nothing in this essay should be particularly controversial or surprising, I would like to see Matt reckon a bit more carefully with his quick conflation between "liberalism" and the progressive social views that he claims have been associated with that ideological tradition in contemporary American politics. There are, quite obviously, many forms of liberalism on which affirmative action and open borders are not good, just, or desirable.
This publication is dedicated to describing and defending the liberal tradition, so they owe it to their readers to really slow down whenever they invoke that name. Matt can and should do a lot more here. This essay is a good start, but I'd love to see more careful reckoning with what it actually means to be liberal vis-a-vis questions of inclusion, ideological compromise, freedom v. egalitarian redistribution, persuasion, etc. and why we ought to prefer one form of liberalism over another.
The right of center understands that there's a distinction between the republican party and the conservative ideological movement. The left does not understand that there's a distinction between the liberal ideological tradition and the democratic political party. Shoring up our understanding of the former would go a long way towards resuscitating the latter.
In 1989, Kwame Ture (fka Stokley Charmichael), presented a lecture to a University of Chicago audience entitled, "Lessons from the 1960s".
During one of the five lessons, Ture shared his opinion on "big tents". He stated that forces which are not *independently organized* are ill-advised to join coalitions, and that mobilizations without power will be exploited every time — even as part of a coalition. He emphasized the importance of segregating independent factions within coalitions, by citing his own faction as an example: "Coalitions may only be formed once we are organized and know precisely what our interests are."
This was (and is) important because organization and identity focus are needed by all, to prevent divergent partners from corrupting one another (by persuasion, threat, or subterfuge) while vying for influence. An ideal coalition then, would be comprised of independent factions who agree to work together, while declining to compromise their identities in the process.
…
In addition to your closing observation, that "the entire game is to persuade [other factions] that because they *do* agree with you about lots of other things, they should vote for you anyway", I would like to add that it's equally important to allow oneself to be persuaded by *other* factions that, because you agree on lots of other things, you should vote with *them* anyway.
Cooperation is a two way street.
This was a nice essay, on an important topic. And a good read.
One way to view this "lesson from the 1960s" is through the lens of the Democratic Party in the period 1933-1968, when it was an overwhelming majoritarian party moving slowly towards progressive (in the old sense) goals. Throughout that period, until 1964-65, the party was in many respects a coalition of progressive New Dealers and segregationist New Dealers.
In 1948, the tension between the two wings resulted in an open split that demonstrated that *at that point in time* the progressive wing of the Party could (barely) retain the power to continue enacting its agenda without Southern support. Twenty years later this was (again, barely) no longer the case. The first split helped enable McCarthyism and a (substantially New Deal-friendly) GOP presidency, but it appeared to be an interregnum -- the Southern component reattached and political momentum was rebuilt. The second split transformed the dynamic in ways that quickly led to a GOP majoritarian era and are fundamental to US politics today.
The lessons to be learned from this seem to me complex, context-bound, and uncertain. At the time that LBJ consciously decided the party could thrive without the South I was delighted; only a few years later I was devastated. What I came to feel was that the real problem was the party's complacency in not preparing better for remediating the effects of the split, and that rank and file followers like me were foolish to think that our agenda should be to reinforce the split by intensifying progressive demands (leading to an increasingly extreme sense of "progressive"), rather than, having realized that "victory" was inevitably contingent, recalibrating what political activism should entail for sustaining long term momentum.
Thank you for this. I'd thought about mentioning segregationist New Dealers in my comment, but decided to focus instead on the importance of keeping faction identity.
The role of New Deal segregationists may be the best example of an effective (if unexpected) faction divergence, and the Democratic Party's failure to replace this support somehow, once segregationists left the New Deal, may have been their greatest mistake.
"The left of center needs to care more about winning elections and acknowledging realities of public opinion than they do about being descriptively correct about the unsavory views of large swaths of the public."
That's great to say, but what happens in elections when GOP candidates will do anything to make the election about cultural issues? Are Democrats just supposed to ignore the issue or take a more centrist view, which will then polarize a large chunk of their base? Ignoring the issue or trying not to get pulled into a fight on these issues is impossible when the past 2 or 3 election cycles have basically been run on the economy and the candidate's cultural rhetoric.
I agree that winning is of the utmost importance, but where exactly is the line between welcoming "bigots" into the tent and saying their views have gone too far? What defines a bigoted view, and who exactly gets to define that? I don't know the answer to those questions, but whoever runs for an elected position is going to have to have an answer. Democrats aren't going to win an election by just saying the economy will be better if they are elected.
Personally, one of the reasons I'm a Democrat is that I believe we will accept everyone and let people choose to live their personal lives how they want. I just hope that if we welcome whomever you describe as "bigots" into the tent, it doesn't mean others will be kicked out.
Step one, have politicians smart enough to defang these types of attacks. How hard is it to say that trans-people participation in sports should be decided by individual orgainizaitons and the communities in which they reside?
Step two, orange-man-bad isn't going to work again. People want to know what are they going to do, not just what Democrats are against. Democrats need to convince people they will secure the border, stop asylum abuses, and deport illegal criminals, while reforming legal immigration and visas.
I am very concerned that Democrats will "virtuously" lose for a decade than become more pragmatic and win.
I agree with you, just saying that running away from the attacks isn't going to work anymore.
It's almost like Democrats should run people in races where their views match the voting populace. Novel concept. Besides the pro-life comments, I think that is exactly what Ezra was advocating for, which everyone went crazy about.
I think this more about not investing yourself deeply in races that aren’t even in your state. Twitter allows every race to get (inter)nationalized, to the point that Canadians were losing their shit when Nina Turner lost her primary.
If someone is running in a deep red district, leave them alone. Tell other people to leave them alone.
For some reason, Jared Golden seems to run under everyone’s radar.
"or take a more centrist view, which will then polarize a large chunk of their base"
I think people WAY overestimate how much the base will revolt. partisanship will get the vast vast majority of people to pull the lever not matter what. Doubly so if someone like Trump is the opponent.
Moreover, people like Bill Clinton and Obama clearly show that you pick up WAY more centrists than you lose in extremists.
The best point in this article is that the left specifically wants purity from white people to be in the big tent.
We could stand to do something like what the last Pope did for the Catholic church. It's not like he actually moderated the church's position on abortion. But he did make it clear that fighting poverty and climate change should be the main focuses of the church instead of concentrating on abortion and fighting gay marriage.
Democrats should be running on stuff that actually affects everyone. Good, affordable healthcare; K-12 education reform; cheap, plentiful housing; cheap, abundant energy. Their answer for immigration should be that we want orderly, legal, limited immigration with a secure border. Their answer for trans sports should be that the Obama administration overreached and the government shouldn't be involved in the question at all because the sports organizations can handle it themselves.
The fact that this article is controversial to many Democrats is a sign of how bad things are for them. Because the article itself is conceding a large amount of ground to the dogmas that are sinking them. The short version being that race, sex and any of their other intersectional categories are interchangeable, and anyone who holds views they deem unacceptable in one area is a "bigot", on par with wanting to bring back slavery, or being a "fascist" or "Nazi". So someone who doesn't think men should be in women's sports is literally equivalent to Hitler.
This is how this article first defines "bigotry":
"According to the 2024 General Social Survey, 32% of Americans say it is “always wrong” for same-sex adults to have sexual relations"
This is the teaching of all of the world's major religions. Christianity, Judaism and Islam all teach this, unequivocally. By taking that position, the Democratic Party has drawn a sharp, categorical line against those faiths, and anyone who follows them faithfully. There are many Democrats, especially in non-white categories, who are unaware that the Democrats actually hold that view. As the Democrats continue to make it clear that they do not merely stand for "live and let live", but for outlawing and persecuting religious belief, their losses will grow. A minimum of 60-70% of Americans identify as Christians. You haven't lost them all yet, because they think they are merely being asked to not impose their beliefs on others. But once they understand that you think they're "bigots", and why, you will.
There are many other areas where these dogmas of the far left are at odds with electoral reality in increasingly visible ways, but that is the most extreme. When it comes to women, who are slightly more than half the population, and therefore not a minority, they are now clearly outpacing men in almost every category of wellbeing. Men are falling behind. As the Democrats continue to act as if women are an oppressed minority, they will lose more and more male votes. Of all races and ethnicities. That trend was already seen in 2024, and it will continue to grow.
The Democrats' extremism on social issues was cited in polls as the second most important reason, behind the economy and inflation, why people voted for Trump. And it was not that far behind. The reason why the far left thought they were winning more than they were, is that they exploited the generalized (classical) liberalism of the public, which broadly believes in "live and let live" and "equality under the law", while holding views that were utterly illiberal, such as censoring speech that they deem "bigotry", which would ultimately have to include banning the Bible. Or practicing open discrimination against men, white people, and anyone else they deemed "privileged". Corporate executives have been caught on video calls openly declaring that they discriminate based on race in the name of "DEI", and the lawsuits and prosecutions are in progress.
If anyone who simply believes the basic biological reality that men cannot become women, and women cannot become men, is a "bigot", you are going to lose a lot more than you have. If acknowledging the biological realities of human reproduction, by which humans as a species continue to exist, is "bigotry", you are, by definition, setting a course for extinction.
I could go on, but it would merely belabor the point. If this article, which itself is far left, is not far left enough for the Democratic Party, that tells you how much trouble they're really in.
They spent four years (really eight) fanatically screaming at the top of their lungs that Donald Trump is a "fascist" and a "threat to democracy". Every human being alive heard them. And then the majority of Americans voted for Trump. Not because he is a fascist, or because they are. They voted that way because they don't believe you, and they think you're nuts. They're scared of you, not him. They think you've gone insane. And all of the violence and cheering for violence that the Democrats have been increasingly engaged in confirms their fears.
Every white liberal should have some non-white left-of-center friends, its a good way to be more grounded on how socially conservative those on your side can be on some issues.
I don’t necessarily disagree with the piece, but I do think it lacks a call-to-action element. Sure, don’t kick out everyone who has social views you find unsavory, but you still need to find a way to hold together the coalition; if you add in racists while hemorrhaging progressive then you’re not much better off. So what is to be done?
I think if the Dems want a bigger, more inclusive coalition they need (1) a flagpole policy position to keep the coalition together and (2) a more hands off approach from the DNC in letting internal debates play out.
On (1), you need something that the different factions not only agree on, but can point to as more important than the issues dividing them. I imagine that this Substack will say “yeah, Abundance!”, but that’s not so easily articulated to the public. The GOP doesn’t need essays to explain what they mean when they call for “lower taxes, smaller government”. A flagpole should ideally be something that the average American can easily connect to some improvement in their life while open ended enough that the different internal factions can fit it into their individual worldviews.
On (2), obviously this includes things like not “canceling” those without perfect progressive views, but also letting primary challenges play out and not having a preordained Party favorite. Let local constituencies decide which faction of the coalition better represents them, and in national elections don’t put bumpers on who is or is not allowed to represent the Party. Have the Party meet people where they are rather than trying to force one position or another.
All I’m gonna say is that it’s a bit pointless to respond to these bad faith arguments when Graham Platner is a literal (barely closeted) Nazi and Bernie Sanders is standing by him. “Some people don’t want a tent big enough to include bigots” - indeed, some of us don’t.
"In a large and diverse country whose political institutions require zero-sum competition between just two political parties, there is simply no way to win elections other than to secure the votes of lots of people who disagree with you about lots of things."
yeah, besides that it's necessary for winning (and winning is necessary), another reason to let people with some shitty views inside the tent is that we're more likely to persuade them to a different view if we're both in there together
Or, and this is maybe the most important part, it might turn out that you misunderstood their point of view and their views aren't as shitty as you originally thought.
Yes! The illiberalism of labeling people and their ideas as "shitty" diminishes our ability to govern. Open exchange of ideas makes us all smarter.
I hope the people who are always attacking you (Matt) from the left will read this piece in good faith: attentively, all the way through, registering the arguments on their merits.
As for the vexed issue of biological males in women's sports, there's a good reason so many Americans and even Democrats oppose it. The spectrum reaches from people who are literally transphobic, in the true sense of phobic, to people who have given the matter conscientious thought and concluded that it just doesn't make sense -- or justice -- to pit natal females against competitors with the advantages of natal males. Including that second set of people in the Democratic coalition is not even a question of including bigots (which, as you argue, is also necessary).
The women's sports situation is a classic example of political discourse completely flattening any nuance in a complicated situation. If your a trans girl who is medically transitioning you are banned from participating in sports, and you won't want to play mens sports because imagine being the one trans girl in a boys locker room. I wouldn't want my child to go through that! So the result is they are prevented from engaging in an important socializing activity at a critical point in their life.
With all that in mind, it's easy to see why the parents of a trans kid might feel very strongly about this issue! Unfortunately it's hard to represent this nuance in a 15 minute online or phone poll.
One thing I applaud matt for is he wants a big tent in all directions, which means people on the left can be included to, and there are a lot of bad faith people out there whose version of a big tent is just kicking out everyone on the left who doesn't agree with them.
Thanks for your reply. One solution that has been suggested is the creation of leagues and classes of competition for transgender people. Meanwhile, there's nothing wrong with letting trans people demonstrate the wisdom to understand that their feelings and aspirations don't take precedence over other people's.
About those "whose version of a big tent is just kicking out everyone on the left who doesn't agree with them," if you tighten up the specification and make it people who want to kick out everyone on the far left who wants to control the party, I'm absolutely one of them. I make that argument every chance I get. The problem is that the leftists in question are not content to be included; they're intent on being the tail that wags the dog, and they've succeeded so well that they've become a mortal liability to the party. I'm a policy progressive (as opposed to an ideological progressive), and it drives me crazy to see the progressive cause driven into the ditch by people who think they have nobler things to do than win elections. What I'm trying to say is what I said after the 2024 election, below.
https://thefamilyproperty.blogspot.com/2024/12/out-of-looking-glass.html
There aren't enough trans kids in most places to realistically form a league just for them.
I think it is more realistic to simply set some kind of standard that can be tested for reasonably affordably -- body composition and hormone checks -- and then let people who meet that standard play.
Worth noting: This is what real sports leagues do, at the highest levels. Not all leagues agree on the details, but that's fine. In some cases, people who were born and raised as women, but have some biological peculiarity, end up failing, as happened with Imane Khelif (who passed the standard for the Olympics, but apparently was rejected by the World Boxing organization). I don't believe anyone (aside from idiot right-wing bigots) has alleged she actually _is a man_ in any sense, but it's possible she has some other genetic peculiarity. (Which would hardly be surprising -- elite athletes almost by definition have unusual biology.)
The evidence suggests that Imane Khelif is genuinely intersex and has XY chromosomes with internal testes. An Algerian journalist somehow obtained a leaked report from Khelif's doctor saying as much, and it was published in a French publication.
Khelif initially claimed she would sue for defamation, but she never actually did despite likely being entitled to fairly substantial damages if she could prove the report was fabricated. She has also never released any medical records (not even a simple chromosome test) that could contradict the leaked report. I find it pretty hard to see that as anything other than a tacit admission.
Without taking the time to investigate this (because I honestly do not care one way or the other), I will just agree that if she's benefitting from the equivalent of being a woman on a regular does of testosterone, it is unfair for her to compete in the women's league. But again, the point is that there are objective things you can test for.
Even if she _did_ have internal testes, the question would be whether that was leading to her having blood testosterone levels outside the range of what's found in a broad population of women, and whether that's been sustained long enough to alter muscle density / body comp stats. If somebody that has testes is on T-blockers long enough -- _especially_ if they started before or only shortly after puberty -- the answer to that question is generally "no", and at that point it seems reasonable for them to compete in a women's league.
I agree that it's possible minimize the degree of disruption/potential unfairness created by trans women athletes with sufficient testing, but just advocating for testing isn't a sufficient answer because you have to decide what values will guide your threshold determinations.
I would argue that the test thresholds should be set such that the average trans woman permitted to compete will be no better at women's sports than she was at men's sports pre-transition (as determined by performance percentile rank). Any other threshold necessarily introduces sex-based unfairness, and the whole point of women's sports is to eliminate sex-based unfairness.
Thanks. I hadn’t heard of that alternative.
Everyone wants to be the one steering the ship. That's how politics works. If you can't beat them to get your hand on the steering wheel, that's on you, not them. Like when people complained that the primary was rigged against Bernie, Iv been consistent in saying that it doesn't matter, politics is about winning and there is no referee to give you points for being treated unfairly.
The NYC election is a great example of this. Zohran went from 1% to winning the primary, and likely now the general election by focusing on positive message cost of living big tent politics. He's keeping on Tisch, has constantly talked about how he is willing to work with people who disagree with him. He's doing the dirty messy work of coalition building to hold power in NYC while those opposed to him just sit around whining about how leftwing, anti-sematic, or whatever he is instead of building their own big coalition positive message.
If you don't want leftwing people in charge, then you need to offer a compelling alternative vision to them. A good start would be rallying around candidates that aren't hideously unpopular like Cuomo or Eric Adams are. Republicans made this same mistake with Trump, don't want your party captured by a compelling intrusive force? Gunna have to offer something more than a pile of wet blankets in response.
My thoughts on this changed from "who cares" to "oh, maybe this shouldn't be a thing" after hearing the opinions of (very progressive) female athletes who felt it was fundamentally unfair for a biological male to compete against biological women. There would not be a separate female category if there weren't significant sexual differences in athletic performance.
The 'pro' argument for transwomen in women's sports is that there aren't many of them competing at a high level. To me, that's an argument in favor of not allowing them - the handful of transwomen who want to play sports should accept that their unique medical situation means that they cannot participate in most competitive sports as their chosen gender. This sucks for them, but to prioritize the feelings of <100 people over millions of ciswomen athletes doesn't make sense to me.
We don't make everybody play basketball in wheelchairs so that paraplegics can be sure of always having enough members for their leagues. It sucks that the average paraplegic kid can't play high school basketball, but sometimes you just have to accept that the world can't always be fair to everybody.
It makes sense to have separate women's sports leagues to eliminate the single biggest source of sports-related unfairness. Adding trans women to women's sports has the potential to undermine that fairness-enhancing purpose that benefits half the population in exchange for creating a new fairness enhancement for a tiny segment of the population. It is entirely reasonable to think that we should be a very cautious about doing so.
The problem is that it's not really as simple as "oh they should just accept it at move on", that's a very easy sentiment to express if you have no interest in a sport yourself! But what if you are interested, maybe even passionate about it?
Middlebury college (A D3 school, so not exactly olympic level competition) kicked all trans women our of their womans sports programs, and one trans swimmer that was kicked out killed herself after being harassed.
I'm not opposed to having regulations and rules around D1/2 college + professional and Olympic competition, because thats most often when real actual top tier womans sports is actually in danger of being diminished, and that should be respected. I do however object to ruining the lives of trans athletes who just want to play a sport for the enjoyment of it.
“There is a world of difference between a political movement led by non-racists trying to exercise some restraint in how high it sets the bar and a movement willfully wallowing in bigotry.” really is a banger here!
I liked the analogy of Kamala Harris back then to scoldy teachers - and I guess I would compare Online GOP to 8th grader edgelords.
Classroom doesn’t like either so neither are winning formula and we need to get out of it!
I honestly don't think the "scoldy teachers" thing is entirely unfair with regard to the image that left-of-center America has embraced in the past decade, but I really don't think it's a fair description of Kamala Harris specifically.
Yeah great point actually!
I guess we can say she didn’t do a good job getting rid of those scoldy teacher impression but I think she at least didn’t take that approach explicitly
I generally agree with this, but I have a hard time understanding what it means in practice.
For example, I personally support trans women in women's sports, though I do think it is an issue on which people of good conscience can disagree. If I want to "grow the tent" on this issue, what should I do?
Should I:
1) Vote for Dem nominees who support trans sports bans?
2) Vote for Dem primary candidates who support trans sports bans over candidates who don't?
3) Not proactively post about this issue on Twitter?
4) Not responding to this issue on Twitter?
5) Actively campaign against it?
How should a politician or activist who supports it respond?
What if this were an issue on which I didn't think people of good conscience (or good intellegence) could agree?
I think it’s about deprioritizing it when election time comes and not necessarily shunning or condemning people who disagree with you, especially if they justify their position based on values you agree are essentially good
Im not quite sure what that means.
As a normal citizen, I'm cool voting for whomever the Dem candidate is, basically regardless, but should I be voting for the candidate for the nomination with whose views I disagree for the nomination?
As a candidate Harris didn't focus on trans issues in the election, but how should she have responded to debate questions? Or to ads claiming she supports trans women in sports?
Your last point is why I’m skeptical of “just don’t talk about your unpopular views”. Republicans will do everything they can to make a Democrats’ unpopular views salient, and ultimately politicians can’t control what voters care about.
I'm torn on this, because I do think that the Dems need to get more in line with the views and values of the median voter, but it's tricky thinking about how exactly you do that, especially when some of those views are bad.
I'm pretty good with moderating on trans women in sports because, while I support it, it's not a strongly held belief. But if, e.g., you told me that, to win back the middle, I should support not just a Dem nominee who is anti-vax,* but a candidate for Dem nominee who is anti-vax, or that I should go on twitter and start posting about how the anti-vax people have a point, I'm not sure I could do it, and I'm sure there are people who feel the same way about trans women in sports or any of the issues on which I amopen to moderating.
*I bring up anti-vax not because it's a likely issue on which Dems could get some mileage by moderating, but because it's an issue that is a bright line for me. If RFK Jr. had somehow become the Dem nominee in 2024, I would have had a hard choice, even with him up against Trump. (Of course, we wound up with the worst of both worlds on that one).
There are definitely hard cases. I think there are ways to thread the needle of signaling acceptance for people with anti-vax views without endorsing them or giving them real power.
For example, being anti-vax shouldn't be a deal breaker for things like speaking at the Democratic Convention, meeting with a Democratic president, or even serving in a Democratic administration in a role with no authority over vaccines. A future nominee could try to emphasize areas of agreement with the MAHA movement that aren't related to vaccines, and go on MAHA-friendly podcasts. RFK Jr. was a Democrat, and I think if the party had been more tolerant of him and his movement, as Obama was back in the day, maybe he never would have mounted a third party bid or allied with Trump. Feeling respected and included matters a lot to people, often as much or more than actual substance.
This goes beyond "don't talk about it". The candidate is honest about their views, but comes off as chill and tolerant and open to discussion. This is what Jared Polis did on pandemic and vaccine issues, for example, and he benefited politically without having to endorse any psuedo-science views himself.
I’m not sure I buy that about RFK. He started off by primarying Biden. And every single one of his family members says he’s a horrible person.
I think antivax is an unusual case in that even 10 years ago virtually everyone understood that it was idiotic. So it’s not so much a case of enlightened elites not understanding the average person’s values and more of a malignantly stupid movement actively working to hurt people. Whereas with things like trans sports, there’s never been any kind of consensus around the Dem position.
I’d also distinguish between questions of values and questions of facts. If someone opposed school vaccination requirements on principled civil libertarian grounds without denying the entire field of immunology, I would vehemently disagree, but I would at least afford them some respect.
I think the point here is that it's an elite persuasion argument to push back hard against people who try to remove people with opposing views from the tent. I actually think the "I don't think this is a very important issue and I'm fine with different views on it" hits very differently if you're in a party which actually has people with diverse views on the subject. If you say that but then in actuality, you have complete uniformity which we all know is enforced by a strong taboo, no one will believe you
If the next dem presidential candidate says "There is a diversity of views on this even within my party, XYZ senators I like disagree on it, and that disagreement is fine.", that seems like it works a lot better to me than just saying you support a diversity of opinion in practice but not making clear that there are real people with real views you will actually tie yourself to
I think putting more thought into it than voting for whoever represents your views best in the available election is probably not healthy. This is why people ranked choice as well, so we don’t have to do calculations about who among the few we like best will be most appealing to others.
I don’t know how active you are on Twitter, but I suggest simply stating that while you support trans participation in sports, it’s not a dealbreaker for you. Elite Democratic opinion still seems downstream of Twitter. Or if a candidate gets dragged for transphobic views, say that they’re running in a very tough race, and we need to expand the tent.
I originally supported trans girls/women in women’s sports, but after seeing some striking examples of trans girls completely dominating, I strongly feel they should not be allowed. In one case, a high school freshman not only beat every senior on the track long jump, but set a state record. This isn’t just unfair to the girls competing in track and field that year. That record might now be out of reach for every girl who comes after.
A good rule of thumb is vote for the person that most closely follows your view "that can win"
So, no in most cases you shouldn't be voting for someone that wants to allow biological males to play in women's sports
I think it's helpful to separate voting from campaigning.
For voting, take some time to prioritize your personal list of issues and vote for candidates accordingly. That might mean choosing a candidate who's views on one or two particular issues diverge, but that's the best you can hope for in a representative democracy.
For issue campaigning, I have three basic takes:
1) Get off social media
2) Seek out people with differing opinions and talk to them face to face
3) This is the hardest and most important one: you'll be most persuasive to others if you are actively humble and open to changing your own mind.
It's definitely a hard pill to swallow. You could say "support only in situations where they can win" but even this, in our nationalized political environment, can have knock on effects by making Dems seem more radical by association.
Ideally we'd have multiparty proportional parliamentary democracy, and you could just let your elected MPs who closely represent your views do the coalitioning part. Unfortunately we don't have that so everyone needs to explicitly think about how their advocacy plays out in practice.
(E.g. I support something close to open borders, but I think I would not advocate any politician who professed my position)
When it comes to candidates for national office, I only consider their positions on economics and foreign policy. Since 2016, support for upholding the constitution and the rule of law are now my paramount concerns. I only consider social issues when voting for state and local candidates.
I think there are a couple of sociological forces behind left-wing tent-shrinking that we should also think about how to counteract:
1. Left wing intellectuals probably greatly underestimate the percentage of people who disagree with them, due to ideological social sorting. This is just the availability heuristic we are all subject to: we think "normal" is more like our own recent, in-person personal experience than it is. But a typical left wing intellectual's social experience consists entirely of groups where nearly everyone agrees on the hot button social issues of the day, and shunning and shaming *does* work in that kind of a supermajority-agreement context to marginalize dissenters-- so people get an understandable but mistaken intuition that it should work more broadly. Whatever we can do to break people out of that intuition is useful, but sadly I am not great at generating persuasive ideas for that.
2. There arguably, maybe, used to be a thing called "mainstream respectability" that had some real social value and that intellectual elites could deny to bigots by refusing to associate with them. When I have argued with people to my left about tent-shrinking, they usually argue that centrists' willingness to associate with bigots (not only political common cause but e.g. appearing on podcasts with them) is bad because it grants them this "mainstream respectability" thing. It seems obvious to me that in 2025 there is no longer any such thing and there will not be such a thing again in our generation. But again, I don't know how to convince people of this when they clearly have a lot invested in the notion that "mainstream respectability" does too exist and could be enforced if we only gatekept harder.
It's important to remember that the modern leftwing movement (such that it exists) is a very young one, both in literal age of it's members but also as a movement itself. The 80's and 90's was functionally a mass extinction event for the old new deal economic left and the social progressive left of the 60's and 70's.
So that leaves us with a left movement that really only started to first crawl in 2008 with the great financial crisis, and could not really articulate itself outside of general protest against the idea of "greed" and "the rich". Moving on after 8 years of obama it starts to walk finding it's voice with Bernie Sanders arguing for social democracy, that what was done during the obama presidency was necessary, but not sufficient.
Bernie in 2016 on social issues was much less radical than he would be in 2020, in large part because that moderation on social issues was an important aspect of the local politics he represented in Vermont. In 2020 he had to represent the left movement finally starting to run, and like any teenager it would make serious mistakes (if we can be left on economics, why not everything else?) as it found it's limits and learned.
Now here in 2025 onward if Zohran represents anything it's the leftwing movement that started all the way back in the obama years is finally maturing. Maintaining a focus on leftwing economics while moderating on policing, social issues, and language. He's made it very clear he is willing to work with people who disagree with him, and he's willing to hear everyone out.
that is a helpful reminder. In 2008 when obama was elected, california voted to ban gay marriage. a little over a decade later and a lot of lefitsts were asking the same people who only recently came around to "i guess two men can get married" to agree that biological sex was essentially meaningless and they were neanderthals if they didn't understand that.
The most recent manifestation of a successful coalition tent, in the words of Chris Rufo:
“It's still mystifying to me that there's a coalition of hardcore Islamists, drag queens, labor thugs, and democratic socialists that is on the verge of winning the mayoralty of the biggest city in the United States.”
Remember that broadening the tent need not mean tacking to the center or ceding power to the Right. If anything, it will take power away from them by deflating one of their most powerful arguments — that the left is a bunch of exclusionary, out-of-touch elitists who regard the rest of the country as deplorables.
You can still be a credible Democrat who is way left-of-center on, say, income redistribution and healthcare while being right of center on, say immigration and affirmative action. The critical theorist's greatest victory was convincing us that these issues are so tightly braided that they must stand or fall together. That certainly helped their more niche views get traction, but it alienated millions of normie liberals in the process. Politics is not uni-dimensional; there are several axes that matter. To broaden the tent, we must stop collapsing issues and people on to a single axis.
We must also stop conflating "people who hold deplorable or bigoted beliefs" with "deplorables and bigots." That is an incredibly damaging rhetorical move and is ironically part and parcel of the tent-narrowing that Matt so rightly descries. Resisting this collapse is important because it is the difference between leaving the door open for conversation with the person you want inside the tent and closing the door on them entirely. If you're at all familiar with the psychological literature on in-group bias, you'll know that Americans are actually far less prejudicial than most people on earth!
So, to that effect, while nothing in this essay should be particularly controversial or surprising, I would like to see Matt reckon a bit more carefully with his quick conflation between "liberalism" and the progressive social views that he claims have been associated with that ideological tradition in contemporary American politics. There are, quite obviously, many forms of liberalism on which affirmative action and open borders are not good, just, or desirable.
This publication is dedicated to describing and defending the liberal tradition, so they owe it to their readers to really slow down whenever they invoke that name. Matt can and should do a lot more here. This essay is a good start, but I'd love to see more careful reckoning with what it actually means to be liberal vis-a-vis questions of inclusion, ideological compromise, freedom v. egalitarian redistribution, persuasion, etc. and why we ought to prefer one form of liberalism over another.
The right of center understands that there's a distinction between the republican party and the conservative ideological movement. The left does not understand that there's a distinction between the liberal ideological tradition and the democratic political party. Shoring up our understanding of the former would go a long way towards resuscitating the latter.
In 1989, Kwame Ture (fka Stokley Charmichael), presented a lecture to a University of Chicago audience entitled, "Lessons from the 1960s".
During one of the five lessons, Ture shared his opinion on "big tents". He stated that forces which are not *independently organized* are ill-advised to join coalitions, and that mobilizations without power will be exploited every time — even as part of a coalition. He emphasized the importance of segregating independent factions within coalitions, by citing his own faction as an example: "Coalitions may only be formed once we are organized and know precisely what our interests are."
This was (and is) important because organization and identity focus are needed by all, to prevent divergent partners from corrupting one another (by persuasion, threat, or subterfuge) while vying for influence. An ideal coalition then, would be comprised of independent factions who agree to work together, while declining to compromise their identities in the process.
…
In addition to your closing observation, that "the entire game is to persuade [other factions] that because they *do* agree with you about lots of other things, they should vote for you anyway", I would like to add that it's equally important to allow oneself to be persuaded by *other* factions that, because you agree on lots of other things, you should vote with *them* anyway.
Cooperation is a two way street.
This was a nice essay, on an important topic. And a good read.
One way to view this "lesson from the 1960s" is through the lens of the Democratic Party in the period 1933-1968, when it was an overwhelming majoritarian party moving slowly towards progressive (in the old sense) goals. Throughout that period, until 1964-65, the party was in many respects a coalition of progressive New Dealers and segregationist New Dealers.
In 1948, the tension between the two wings resulted in an open split that demonstrated that *at that point in time* the progressive wing of the Party could (barely) retain the power to continue enacting its agenda without Southern support. Twenty years later this was (again, barely) no longer the case. The first split helped enable McCarthyism and a (substantially New Deal-friendly) GOP presidency, but it appeared to be an interregnum -- the Southern component reattached and political momentum was rebuilt. The second split transformed the dynamic in ways that quickly led to a GOP majoritarian era and are fundamental to US politics today.
The lessons to be learned from this seem to me complex, context-bound, and uncertain. At the time that LBJ consciously decided the party could thrive without the South I was delighted; only a few years later I was devastated. What I came to feel was that the real problem was the party's complacency in not preparing better for remediating the effects of the split, and that rank and file followers like me were foolish to think that our agenda should be to reinforce the split by intensifying progressive demands (leading to an increasingly extreme sense of "progressive"), rather than, having realized that "victory" was inevitably contingent, recalibrating what political activism should entail for sustaining long term momentum.
Thank you for this. I'd thought about mentioning segregationist New Dealers in my comment, but decided to focus instead on the importance of keeping faction identity.
The role of New Deal segregationists may be the best example of an effective (if unexpected) faction divergence, and the Democratic Party's failure to replace this support somehow, once segregationists left the New Deal, may have been their greatest mistake.
Well stated.
"The left of center needs to care more about winning elections and acknowledging realities of public opinion than they do about being descriptively correct about the unsavory views of large swaths of the public."
That's great to say, but what happens in elections when GOP candidates will do anything to make the election about cultural issues? Are Democrats just supposed to ignore the issue or take a more centrist view, which will then polarize a large chunk of their base? Ignoring the issue or trying not to get pulled into a fight on these issues is impossible when the past 2 or 3 election cycles have basically been run on the economy and the candidate's cultural rhetoric.
I agree that winning is of the utmost importance, but where exactly is the line between welcoming "bigots" into the tent and saying their views have gone too far? What defines a bigoted view, and who exactly gets to define that? I don't know the answer to those questions, but whoever runs for an elected position is going to have to have an answer. Democrats aren't going to win an election by just saying the economy will be better if they are elected.
Personally, one of the reasons I'm a Democrat is that I believe we will accept everyone and let people choose to live their personal lives how they want. I just hope that if we welcome whomever you describe as "bigots" into the tent, it doesn't mean others will be kicked out.
Step one, have politicians smart enough to defang these types of attacks. How hard is it to say that trans-people participation in sports should be decided by individual orgainizaitons and the communities in which they reside?
Step two, orange-man-bad isn't going to work again. People want to know what are they going to do, not just what Democrats are against. Democrats need to convince people they will secure the border, stop asylum abuses, and deport illegal criminals, while reforming legal immigration and visas.
I am very concerned that Democrats will "virtuously" lose for a decade than become more pragmatic and win.
I agree with you, just saying that running away from the attacks isn't going to work anymore.
It's almost like Democrats should run people in races where their views match the voting populace. Novel concept. Besides the pro-life comments, I think that is exactly what Ezra was advocating for, which everyone went crazy about.
I think this more about not investing yourself deeply in races that aren’t even in your state. Twitter allows every race to get (inter)nationalized, to the point that Canadians were losing their shit when Nina Turner lost her primary.
If someone is running in a deep red district, leave them alone. Tell other people to leave them alone.
For some reason, Jared Golden seems to run under everyone’s radar.
"or take a more centrist view, which will then polarize a large chunk of their base"
I think people WAY overestimate how much the base will revolt. partisanship will get the vast vast majority of people to pull the lever not matter what. Doubly so if someone like Trump is the opponent.
Moreover, people like Bill Clinton and Obama clearly show that you pick up WAY more centrists than you lose in extremists.
The best point in this article is that the left specifically wants purity from white people to be in the big tent.
We could stand to do something like what the last Pope did for the Catholic church. It's not like he actually moderated the church's position on abortion. But he did make it clear that fighting poverty and climate change should be the main focuses of the church instead of concentrating on abortion and fighting gay marriage.
Democrats should be running on stuff that actually affects everyone. Good, affordable healthcare; K-12 education reform; cheap, plentiful housing; cheap, abundant energy. Their answer for immigration should be that we want orderly, legal, limited immigration with a secure border. Their answer for trans sports should be that the Obama administration overreached and the government shouldn't be involved in the question at all because the sports organizations can handle it themselves.
The fact that this article is controversial to many Democrats is a sign of how bad things are for them. Because the article itself is conceding a large amount of ground to the dogmas that are sinking them. The short version being that race, sex and any of their other intersectional categories are interchangeable, and anyone who holds views they deem unacceptable in one area is a "bigot", on par with wanting to bring back slavery, or being a "fascist" or "Nazi". So someone who doesn't think men should be in women's sports is literally equivalent to Hitler.
This is how this article first defines "bigotry":
"According to the 2024 General Social Survey, 32% of Americans say it is “always wrong” for same-sex adults to have sexual relations"
This is the teaching of all of the world's major religions. Christianity, Judaism and Islam all teach this, unequivocally. By taking that position, the Democratic Party has drawn a sharp, categorical line against those faiths, and anyone who follows them faithfully. There are many Democrats, especially in non-white categories, who are unaware that the Democrats actually hold that view. As the Democrats continue to make it clear that they do not merely stand for "live and let live", but for outlawing and persecuting religious belief, their losses will grow. A minimum of 60-70% of Americans identify as Christians. You haven't lost them all yet, because they think they are merely being asked to not impose their beliefs on others. But once they understand that you think they're "bigots", and why, you will.
There are many other areas where these dogmas of the far left are at odds with electoral reality in increasingly visible ways, but that is the most extreme. When it comes to women, who are slightly more than half the population, and therefore not a minority, they are now clearly outpacing men in almost every category of wellbeing. Men are falling behind. As the Democrats continue to act as if women are an oppressed minority, they will lose more and more male votes. Of all races and ethnicities. That trend was already seen in 2024, and it will continue to grow.
The Democrats' extremism on social issues was cited in polls as the second most important reason, behind the economy and inflation, why people voted for Trump. And it was not that far behind. The reason why the far left thought they were winning more than they were, is that they exploited the generalized (classical) liberalism of the public, which broadly believes in "live and let live" and "equality under the law", while holding views that were utterly illiberal, such as censoring speech that they deem "bigotry", which would ultimately have to include banning the Bible. Or practicing open discrimination against men, white people, and anyone else they deemed "privileged". Corporate executives have been caught on video calls openly declaring that they discriminate based on race in the name of "DEI", and the lawsuits and prosecutions are in progress.
If anyone who simply believes the basic biological reality that men cannot become women, and women cannot become men, is a "bigot", you are going to lose a lot more than you have. If acknowledging the biological realities of human reproduction, by which humans as a species continue to exist, is "bigotry", you are, by definition, setting a course for extinction.
I could go on, but it would merely belabor the point. If this article, which itself is far left, is not far left enough for the Democratic Party, that tells you how much trouble they're really in.
They spent four years (really eight) fanatically screaming at the top of their lungs that Donald Trump is a "fascist" and a "threat to democracy". Every human being alive heard them. And then the majority of Americans voted for Trump. Not because he is a fascist, or because they are. They voted that way because they don't believe you, and they think you're nuts. They're scared of you, not him. They think you've gone insane. And all of the violence and cheering for violence that the Democrats have been increasingly engaged in confirms their fears.
Every white liberal should have some non-white left-of-center friends, its a good way to be more grounded on how socially conservative those on your side can be on some issues.
I don’t necessarily disagree with the piece, but I do think it lacks a call-to-action element. Sure, don’t kick out everyone who has social views you find unsavory, but you still need to find a way to hold together the coalition; if you add in racists while hemorrhaging progressive then you’re not much better off. So what is to be done?
I think if the Dems want a bigger, more inclusive coalition they need (1) a flagpole policy position to keep the coalition together and (2) a more hands off approach from the DNC in letting internal debates play out.
On (1), you need something that the different factions not only agree on, but can point to as more important than the issues dividing them. I imagine that this Substack will say “yeah, Abundance!”, but that’s not so easily articulated to the public. The GOP doesn’t need essays to explain what they mean when they call for “lower taxes, smaller government”. A flagpole should ideally be something that the average American can easily connect to some improvement in their life while open ended enough that the different internal factions can fit it into their individual worldviews.
On (2), obviously this includes things like not “canceling” those without perfect progressive views, but also letting primary challenges play out and not having a preordained Party favorite. Let local constituencies decide which faction of the coalition better represents them, and in national elections don’t put bumpers on who is or is not allowed to represent the Party. Have the Party meet people where they are rather than trying to force one position or another.
All I’m gonna say is that it’s a bit pointless to respond to these bad faith arguments when Graham Platner is a literal (barely closeted) Nazi and Bernie Sanders is standing by him. “Some people don’t want a tent big enough to include bigots” - indeed, some of us don’t.
You’re kind of proving his point
Correct, I agree with him, my claim is that the leftists pretending to disagree are lying for rhetorical advantage.
To be fair, while there some overlap, in many cases the woke left and the socialist left are different people.
Going to quibble here that he isn’t a *literal* nazi.
Losing on one issue when it was the anti lynching law had dire consequences.
"In a large and diverse country whose political institutions require zero-sum competition between just two political parties, there is simply no way to win elections other than to secure the votes of lots of people who disagree with you about lots of things."
this