I am puzzled by your description of the alignments in the Democratic Party and how Joe Biden fit into them. I think it incontestable that after the 1960s the Democratic Party moved away from the FDR-Harry Truman-LBJ commitment to the New Deal and its emphasis on economic equity. Beginning with Cater and accelerating with the Clintons and Obama, the party became committed to neo-liberalism and de-regulation. They didn't reverse the flattening out of the progressive income tax that began with Reagan. They didn't push hard to raise the minimum wage, and their commitment to universal affordable health care, which can only be realized by Medicare for Everyone, was absent.
But then you say, "The Clinton-Obama-Sanders-Elizabeth Warren style of Democrats represent the economic and cultural leadership of socially liberal college graduates." I can't understand that grouping, It was Sanders and Warren and others who pushed hard to return the Democrats to the New Deal commitment to economic equity, proper taxation, and corporate and financial regulation, which the Clintons and Obama had rejected.
Biden did not present himself during the 2020 campaign as nearly committed to the New Deal legacy as his main challengers, Sanders and Warren. He presented himself as the "centrist" candidate. And you were keen for him exactly for that reason, since you have a knee=jerk antipathy to the progressive wing of the party. People were rather surprised that, once in office, Biden was so progressive in his domestic policies. We attributed it largely to the progressives in Congress. There's no doubt that Biden had a longstanding commitment to organized labor, but neither in the Senate nor as VP did he indicate that he was as close to Sanders on economic policy as he proved to be. That is why Sanders was one of his die-hard supporters when he was being pressured yo step aside.
You have to be more careful in your description of alignments within the Democratic Party over time.
I've been very impressed by our VP in the last year or two. Early on, she seemed tentative and amorphous, and often defensive during her public interactions. Now, it seems to me, she has a consistently solid, organized, and genuinely happy presence; in short, charisma.
I think that what will win the election is persona more than policy. That's a real shame, I believe: as a general matter, policy ought to win the day. But now we have two personae, and my bet is on Harris; only the MAGA base is going to accept the horrid name-calling that is Trump's trademark.
I am puzzled by your description of the alignments in the Democratic Party and how Joe Biden fit into them. I think it incontestable that after the 1960s the Democratic Party moved away from the FDR-Harry Truman-LBJ commitment to the New Deal and its emphasis on economic equity. Beginning with Cater and accelerating with the Clintons and Obama, the party became committed to neo-liberalism and de-regulation. They didn't reverse the flattening out of the progressive income tax that began with Reagan. They didn't push hard to raise the minimum wage, and their commitment to universal affordable health care, which can only be realized by Medicare for Everyone, was absent.
But then you say, "The Clinton-Obama-Sanders-Elizabeth Warren style of Democrats represent the economic and cultural leadership of socially liberal college graduates." I can't understand that grouping, It was Sanders and Warren and others who pushed hard to return the Democrats to the New Deal commitment to economic equity, proper taxation, and corporate and financial regulation, which the Clintons and Obama had rejected.
Biden did not present himself during the 2020 campaign as nearly committed to the New Deal legacy as his main challengers, Sanders and Warren. He presented himself as the "centrist" candidate. And you were keen for him exactly for that reason, since you have a knee=jerk antipathy to the progressive wing of the party. People were rather surprised that, once in office, Biden was so progressive in his domestic policies. We attributed it largely to the progressives in Congress. There's no doubt that Biden had a longstanding commitment to organized labor, but neither in the Senate nor as VP did he indicate that he was as close to Sanders on economic policy as he proved to be. That is why Sanders was one of his die-hard supporters when he was being pressured yo step aside.
You have to be more careful in your description of alignments within the Democratic Party over time.
I've been very impressed by our VP in the last year or two. Early on, she seemed tentative and amorphous, and often defensive during her public interactions. Now, it seems to me, she has a consistently solid, organized, and genuinely happy presence; in short, charisma.
I think that what will win the election is persona more than policy. That's a real shame, I believe: as a general matter, policy ought to win the day. But now we have two personae, and my bet is on Harris; only the MAGA base is going to accept the horrid name-calling that is Trump's trademark.
And, oh. Michael Mechanic over at Mother Jones has a nice article on nearly-mirthless Donald: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/07/donald-trump-ridicules-kamala-harris-chuckle-maybe-because-he-almost-never-laughs/