The Democratic Party seems to be going through quite the identity crisis as it faces a critical moment leading up to the midterm elections. Over the past year, they have been wrestling with their direction and message, particularly when it comes to shifting away from certain progressive stances. Apparently, their rhetoric on gender identity drifted some voters towards Trump, creating a bit of a predicament for the party. According to polls, this movement cost them about two points in the electorate, a situation leaving strategists scratching their heads, and perhaps losing some sleep.
With Democratic socialists scoring wins in areas like New York and Seattle, it’s no wonder that the party is scratching its collective head, pondering what comes next. James Carville, a famed strategist, had a thing or two to say about this tug of war within their ranks. He suggests that while the coalition nature of the party desires to include everyone, there comes a point where inclusion becomes counterproductive. Voters are getting a little tired, it seems, of the so-called “woke” culture, a term that Carville himself isn’t too fond of yet can’t deny the tangible damage it caused.
Carville is somewhat candid about his view on these matters, expressing that the Democratic Party may have to do more than just quietly move on from identity politics—maybe they need to actively denounce it. Identity politics is not only unpopular but, according to Carville, was a “giant mistake” that threw a wrench into the party’s operations. While some suggest quietly declaring victory and moving on, Carville proposes that acknowledging the stupidity and harm of past strategies might be a smarter move. Indeed, the Democrats might have to admit this was an era that primarily slowed them down instead of pushing them toward success.
This inner turmoil seems to extend further with the subject of the Supreme Court. Carville and others are suggesting that the Democrats could potentially expand the number of justices from nine to thirteen, pointing to an alleged imbalance favoring the Republicans. In Carville’s view, the current frame of the court serves corporate interests more than the law itself. His proposition naturally sparks conversations about the implications of such a move, bringing to mind the historical failures of court-packing attempts, like the time Roosevelt tried and it was seen as a political faux pas.
Even more interestingly, a potential remedy posed is to admit Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico as states. This could, in theory, balance congressional power, considering Carville’s estimation that just 18% of the U.S. population elects a whopping 52 Senators. However, these ideas, teetering on the edges of political norms, beg for more than a simple majority. They would require significant procedural changes, like nixing the filibuster, to become a reality—not an easy sell even within Democratic ranks. So, while the Democrats may dream of solving these “emergencies” with sweeping measures, one can’t help but wonder if their aspirations might outstrip their grasp.
