There is a continuing debate among writers, observers and strategists associated with the Democratic Party on the best way to win elections in closely divided (or even Republican-leaning) areas. The ascendant position is called "popularism," in which you "talk about popular issues, and not talk about unpopular issues," as David Shor, a Democratic pollster and proponent for the approach, recently explained. |
Writing for The Week magazine, Ryan Cooper gives a critique of popularism that I agree with. First, that polling is too imprecise and unreliable to be the basis for a durable political strategy, and second, that what's popular isn't necessarily what's strategically wise or tactically advantageous. Here's Cooper: |
Obsessively monitoring polls and instantly trimming down or throwing out policies that don't register a strongly positive poll result will tend to reinforce that wimpy attitude. It will also tend to rule out unpopular but tactically sound moves, like for example pushing through with an economic stimulus that may not poll well today but will ensure unemployment is low on Election Day. Conversely, Bill Clinton's passage of free trade deals may have paid off politically in the short term, but did tremendous damage to the Democrats' long-term performance in the numerous places that were harmed. |
There is another problem with popularism. The idea that voters will respond mechanistically to candidates with popular policies depends on a picture of voters as essentially rational, utility-maximizing actors. But voters are notably irrational. They don't calmly evaluate candidates on the basis of their positions; they make character and value judgments mediated by partisanship and external conditions. Affect and demeanor matter as much as ideology and belief. |
It does not hurt to emphasize popular policies over unpopular ones. But successful candidates in difficult races need more than just popular positions to succeed. They need to show — through image and language — that their values align with voters' as much as their positions. They need to embody the kind of politics they hope to pursue. |
We have good examples of this. Bernie Sanders did not become a popular, beloved political figure because he had positions in line with those of the median voter. He became a popular, beloved political figure because his affect, demeanor and language demonstrated a deep commitment to values held by millions of American voters. Raphael Warnock, the recently elected senator from Georgia, accomplished a similar feat, running a campaign that was as much about his identity as a husband, father, religious leader and native son of the state as it was about his positions. |
Given a strong enough and distinct enough identity, candidates can even turn a controversial or unpopular belief into a sign of their authenticity and independence. This, I think, was one of Donald Trump's great political talents. (And to the popularists' point, Trump was closer to the median voter on Social Security and Medicare than previous Republican presidential candidates.) |
For as much as there is a lot to learn from the systematic study of political life, it's also true that the practice of politics is not a science and that there is no set formula to selecting candidates or running winning campaigns. I am not opposed to popularism per se, but I would also urge its proponents to consider the possibility that the kinds of candidates who can win might be rough and idiosyncratic in unpredictable and unquantifiable ways. |
My Tuesday column was on Donald Trump's continuing attempt to essentially overthrow American democracy and install himself as president, regardless of what the American people say: |
It is not hard to see the endgame here, especially if Trump makes another bid for the White House after capturing the Republican nomination for a third time. Not an after-the-fact fight to "stop the steal," but a pre-emptive attempt to make sure the election can't be "stolen" — that is, won — by his opponent. |
My Friday column took Tucker Carlson's newfound fondness for the Hungarian autocrat Viktor Orban as a jumping-off point for exploring a tendency of conservative intellectuals to embrace authoritarian leaders and governments: |
At this point, students of American political history — and specifically students with a working knowledge of the history of the conservative movement — will recognize something familiar about this story. Here we have prominent conservative writers and intellectuals using their platforms to support or endorse regimes whose politics and policies align with their preoccupations, even as the values of those regimes stand in direct opposition to the ideals of American democracy. |
I also did a Twitter live chat and Q. and A., which you can watch here. |
Amanda Mull on American shoppers and American consumerism in The Atlantic. |
 | | Jamelle Bouie |
|
This is the base of what was the Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson statue in Charlottesville, Va. It was removed on the same day the Robert E. Lee statute was, albeit without the same coverage or fanfare. The city also removed a statue of Lewis and Clark — on account of its pretty awful imagery — and the University of Virginia removed a statue depicting the conquering of the West. All were placed in the 1920s, and you should understand them as part of a singular project: to claim Charlottesville on behalf of its white elite. |
Now Eating: Chicken in Oaxacan Yellow Mole With Green Beans and Potatoes |
I made this for dinner last night. It's from the cookbook "Mexican Everyday" by Rick Bayless. I had intended to use beans for this, but decided to go with the chicken. The recipe calls for using boneless, skinless chicken thighs, but I think it is easier — and works better — to just used already cooked chicken, like a grocery store rotisserie chicken. You should serve this with corn or flour tortillas on the side, preferably homemade. |
- 4 dried guajillo chiles, 1 ounce total, stemmed, seeded and torn into several pieces each
- 1 15-ounce can diced tomatoes in juice, drained
- 1 medium white onion, cut in 4 pieces
- 3 garlic cloves, peeled and halved
- ½ teaspoon each ground cumin, allspice and cinnamon
- 1 teaspoon dried Mexican oregano
- 4 cups chicken stock, divided
- 2 tablespoons olive oil
- 2 tablespoons masa harina
- meat from 1 whole rotisserie chicken, skin removed
- 6 ounces green beans, trimmed and cut into 2-inch pieces
- 1 pound baby Yukon Gold potatoes, cut in half
- ½ cup roughly chopped cilantro
|
In a blender jar, combine the torn guajillo chiles, tomatoes, onion, garlic, spices, oregano and 1 cup of the chicken broth. Blend until as smooth as possible. |
In a medium-large, heavy pot (like a Dutch oven), heat the oil over medium-high. Set a medium-mesh strainer over the top and pour in the chile mixture; press the mixture through the strainer into the hot oil. (Note: You won't need to take this step if you're using a high-powered blender, like a Vitamix.) |
Cook over medium heat, stirring, until the mixture is reduced to the consistency of tomato paste, about 15 minutes. |
Whisk the masa harina into the remaining 3 cups broth, then pour into the cooked chile mixture. Whisk until the sauce comes to a boil and thickens. Reduce the heat to medium-low. Add the chicken, green beans, potatoes and 1 teaspoon salt. Simmer gently, stirring regularly, for about 20 minutes, until all the chicken and vegetables are tender. Serve. |
|
