Political scientists Robert Saldin (University of Montana) and B. Kal Munis (Utah Valley University) authored the report, which focuses on rural and working-class whites, for Niskanen Center. The executive summary follows:
The Democratic Party finds itself in a highly precarious electoral position. Although the party performed historically well in 2022, its central weaknesses – those which threaten its ability to govern both nationally and especially at the state level – were still very much in evidence. Even in “good” election cycles, Democrats struggle to translate their typically impressive aggregate vote totals across the country and within states into seats in government. Core to the party’s struggles are its weaknesses with rural and working-class voters. If left unaddressed, the party will not only become irrelevant throughout many states in the country, but it will also continue to face difficulty – and maybe increasing difficulty – in winning the presidency and congressional majorities.
To effectively address these problems, like-minded activists, donors, and others in the broader Democratic ecosystem must come together to form and institutionalize a proper faction within the party that has a platform and brand that differs from that of the big city and college campus-dominated national party establishment. This new faction needs to be capable of recruiting, financing, and otherwise supporting candidates to run on a platform and brand more appealing to the rural and working-class voters that the party has been hemorrhaging in recent decades. While this new faction will emphasize different issues than the national party, it need not alienate most voters within the current Democratic base. From a policy standpoint, the faction should pursue strategic moderation on social issues paired with progressive economic populism and championing, on a district-by-district basis, local issues that are not amenable to politicization in the national discourse.
The authors explain "faction":
The term “faction” is commonly used to refer to all sorts of political groupings and subgroupings with varying levels of coherence and organization. But we employ the term to refer to entities that are, essentially, parties within a party. By faction, we mean an institution within one of the major parties that has an affiliated team of politicians, political professionals, activists, interest groups, donors, and intellectuals. A faction is characterized by its formal organization and its grounding in ideas (as opposed to, say, the charisma of a single politician). There’s more structure to factions than a “wing,” or a “bloc” or a “Gang of X.”
(p. 11)
Here are some other excerpts:
Democrats running in rural areas (or, indeed, in any district where national partisan dynamics leave them at a disadvantage) should avoid engaging in contentious debate on polarizing national issues such as race, gender, abortion, sanctuary cities, the specter of gun bans, and the like. After all, electoral campaigns are, in essence, a competition to define the narrative, or determine the handful of issues that will define what’s at stake in a particular election.
* * *
If such lightning rod issues must be discussed, candidates should recast them through a local lens to focus on the arguments for or against the policy in terms of costs and benefits to the district. New political science research shows the effectiveness of this approach in relation to the Affordable Care Act. Recasting policy arguments through a local lens helped persuade independent voters and weakly attached out-partisans. Regarding racial issues, because rural America is overwhelmingly white (appreciating that there are, of course, some notable exceptions mainly, though not exclusively, concentrated in the South), Democrats in these areas should reframe discussions of racial privilege, inequity, and such away from race to instead focus on a class lens. In lieu of engaging their Republican opponents on the national issues of the day, Democrats should localize their races by heightening the salience of pressing problems and issues that are either idiosyncratic to the district or broader in scope but ignored in national partisan discourse. This approach is beneficial as it allows Democrats to appeal to independents and Republicans without alienating their base.
Saldin and Munis not that U.S. Senator Jon Tester of Montana "has championed local issues most effectively in three policy areas:
1. conservation and the environment: On multiple occasions, Tester has pulled together diverse arrays of stakeholders, including loggers and other extractive interests as well as conservationists and recreationists, to collaboratively craft highly place-based legislation that benefits virtually everyone.
2. veterans affairs: About 10% of the Montana electorate are veterans, so his advocacy resonates especially well. This also helps Tester tap into patriotism, which is relevant since Democrats are often dinged for being insufficiently patriotic and over 90% of rural Americans see America as rating among the greatest countries in the world.
3. corporate monopoly in agriculture: Only a small share of rural voters work directly in agriculture but farming and ranching remain a potent cultural symbol in rural America. As a result, Tester’s advocacy for family farmers and ranchers, including a 2021 proposal aimed at bolstering anti-competitive enforcement in the meatpacking industry, has widespread effects, both material and symbolic, beyond just the family farming and ranching communities. These kinds of issues are both substantively important for Tester’s constituents and help him break through the forces of nationalization that work against rural Democrats.
Rural Democrats across the country need to be similarly creative in identifying and championing local issues specific to their states and districts that cross-cut partisanship.
(pp. 16-17)
The report includes these specific suggestions for how Democrats can improve their margins in rural areas.
• Recruit candidates who have strong roots (ideally rural roots), as voters tend to view these candidates as being more authentic and as more likely to understand the problems facing the district and its people.
• Build up a presence in rural areas by holding events as well as earning and buying media time in the platforms that serve rural communities.
• Strategically break with the national party and meet would-be constituents where they are on issues with high salience and high symbolic power in rural areas, like guns.
• Avoid wading into the national political conversation on hot-button issues. To the extent national issues must be addressed, localize the framing of those discussions as much as possible. Instead of focusing onto national issues, elevate the saliency of cross-cutting local issues that cannot easily be grafted on national divisions.
(p. 17)
Cross-posted to Working-Class Whites and the Law.
No comments:
Post a Comment