ShareThis Page
Featured Commentary

Jonah Goldberg: Democrats need more than an anti-Trump platform

| Wednesday, May 16, 2018, 9:00 p.m.
In this Sept. 15, 2017, file photo, Judy Weatherly, a supporter of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) holds up a sign during a protest outside of the Federal Building in San Francisco. The Trump administration will try to convince a U.S. appeals court that it was justified in ending an Obama-era immigration policy that shielded hundreds of thousands of young immigrants from deportation. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu, File)
In this Sept. 15, 2017, file photo, Judy Weatherly, a supporter of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) holds up a sign during a protest outside of the Federal Building in San Francisco. The Trump administration will try to convince a U.S. appeals court that it was justified in ending an Obama-era immigration policy that shielded hundreds of thousands of young immigrants from deportation. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu, File)

One of the right's most common, and best, arguments for the Trump presidency is that it shattered the Republican Party's calcified agenda. Invested in a coalition of various interests and beholden to a pervasive and outdated Reagan nostalgia, the GOP desperately needed new rhetoric and a new approach. For good or ill, President Trump provided both.

The Democrats' effort to come up with a program, separate from anti-Trumpism, suggests they're in desperate need of some disruption as well.

Say what you will about Reagan nostalgia, it's at least fresher than FDR nostalgia, which has largely defined the Democratic Party for the better part of a century. When Democrats look for a policy vision, their framework is the New Deal.

Harry Truman's Fair Deal and LBJ's Great Society were both continuations of the New Deal.

After the 9/11 attacks, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer wrote in The Washington Post that the attacks proved “the era of a shrinking federal government has come to a close.” This new challenge proved we needed a “new New Deal.”

Even the New Deal's biggest competitor, John F. Kennedy nostalgia, has always been about aesthetics and atmospherics. Kennedy's own policy agenda never broke with the New Deal paradigm.

Barack Obama, who had a Kennedy-esque cult of personality, was nonetheless expected by liberals to be a new FDR. When Obama rolled out his sweeping policy vision, a “New Foundation,” it was a New Deal rehash.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, 78, is a child of the New Deal. Her father, Thomas D'Alesandro Jr., a passionate New Dealer in Congress, named one of his sons Franklin D. Roosevelt D'Alesandro. The New Deal remains Pelosi's North Star, which may be why she accidentally referred to their new program as “the New Deal.”

Now the Democrats have their “Better Deal” agenda, yet another New Deal retread. The Democrats even admit it. Pelosi insisted that the Better Deal is not “a course correction.” It is “a presentation correction.” Schumer says it was chosen in part for “its relation to both the New Deal and a better deal than Trump.”

It's remarkable how Democrats call GOP ideas tired and outdated, yet keep returning to a well that was dug four years after the invention of sliced bread. At the rollout of a Better Deal, Pelosi said it is “founded on strong values that we share. Strong values fueled by fresh ideas.”

On “Fox News Sunday,” anchor Chris Wallace asked House Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley to “give me one fresh idea that Democrats are offering voters for November.”

Crowley's confident response: A new infrastructure plan! But one that, unlike Trump's plan, the feds would pick up more of the tab for. Can't you smell the freshness?

start optional cut here Ironically, the New Deal was never a coherent program. It was a mixed and entirely ad-hoc, dirigiste response to an economic crisis. “To look upon these programs as the result of a unified plan,” wrote Raymond Moley, FDR's right-hand man during much of the New Deal, “was to believe that the accumulation of stuffed snakes, baseball pictures, school flags, old tennis shoes, carpenter's tools, geometry books and chemistry sets in a boy's bedroom could have been put there by an interior decorator.” end optional cut

There are many reasons the Democrats remain a cargo cult to the New Deal, but the most important one for this moment is that the approach unifies not Democratic voters but Democratic politicians. The FDR coalition is a relic. The coalition the Democrats want is shot through with divisions. The Better Deal gives Democratic pols something to talk about that won't rile one faction or another.

That may be good enough to win the 2018 midterm elections, because all they really need is some boilerplate to rely on as they ride an anti-Trump wave. But the time will come when it won't be enough. The disruption is coming. They can help shape it, or they await a destroyer not of their own choosing.

Jonah Goldberg is an editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me