Adam Jentleson’s Supply-Side Progressivism
It’s not any sort of progressivism: it’s the emerging ‘off left’.
In When Will Democrats Learn to Say No?, Adam Jentleson lays out a case for rejecting the progressivism currently animating the Democratic party and embracing a realpolitik mindset in order to get back to a Democratic supermajority.
Jentleson, a political insider (former chief of staff to Senator John Fetterman, a former deputy chief of staff to Senator Harry Reid), wants the Dems to reject ‘the groups’ — the Democratic blob that pushes for progressive issues that many Americans don’t care about — and instead focus on things that matter, like winning elections, and building a supermajority, again.
‘That starts with picking an ambitious electoral goal — say, the 365 electoral votes Barack Obama won in 2008 — and thinking clearly about what Democrats need to do to achieve it. Democrats cannot do this as long as they remain crippled by a fetish for putting coalition management over a real desire for power.’
Which requires turning away from the groups:
‘Achieving a supermajority means declaring independence from liberal and progressive interest groups that prevent Democrats from thinking clearly about how to win. Collectively, these groups impose the rigid mores and vocabulary of college-educated elites, placing a hard ceiling on Democrats’ appeal and fatally wounding them in the places they need to win not just to take back the White House, but to have a prayer in the Senate.’
He cites examples of Harris and her campaign getting bogged down in progressive sludge, and then says the groups should be argued with, not acquiesced to:
‘Alienating the groups is seen as anathema, but they should start seeing it as both right and necessary — a long overdue resetting of the relationship that will be healthy for all involved.’
Basically, fuck the groups. Said differently, move to the right: embrace principles of the ‘off left’ or ‘conservative left’, like limiting immigration.¹
‘A winning strategy has to be more heterodox than the interest groups will allow. Many candidates who overperformed in swing districts were, simultaneously, economically populist, culturally conservative, anti-regulation and anti-corruption, reflecting the complexity of voters that the groups try to sand down.’
He introduces a term — ‘supply-side progressivism’ — which is double-talk for the ‘off left’, and seems to be pointing to Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and her fellows who outperformed in Trump districts, and who ‘broke with progressive orthodoxy’.
He then names Gluesenkamp Perez, Dan Osborn, and Ruben Gallego as examples of Democrats who have shown the way this might work. I would include Jared Golden, Mary Peltola, and perhaps Tom Suozzi, plus others in the Blue Dog Coalition in Congress.
‘Those who would rather lose elections so that they can feel better about themselves leave the real suffering to the people they claim to fight for. No one wins when we lose. It is time to start winning again.’
Go to where the voters are, and talk about their issues, not where you want them to be magically transported. The ordinary people are a lot more ‘off’ that the progressive left blob would like to believe.
¹ I have adopted the term ‘off left’ (for a number of reasons) instead of ‘blue left’ which originally was derived from the ‘Blue Dog’ Democrats like Bill Clinton and Blue Labour in the UK. But I think the offish elements of the Dems today are quite different from the blueish political philosophy of the past, and so I am using ‘off left’ instead of ‘blue’ or ‘blue dog’ to reference them. An explanatory article is in the works.
Originally published on Medium.