Is This A Real Thing?

 I'm not implying it's not, but Yglesias and now Jon Chait are basically arguing that the activist base of the Democratic Party - which is largely composed of college educated Whites - is turning off its socially moderate wing that is unusually Black, Brown and Asian. It was Chait who noted the racial disparity.

Now, I certainly agree with the idea that many of the activists' strategies and messages are bad. I really think "Defund the Police" hurt Democrats with Hispanic voters, many of whom work in law enforcement. The fact that the Biden Administration has increased spending on the police is A) true B) not something they can flog publicly because that might upset some of the base. 

Affirmative Action is a really good example of a complicated issue that hurts Democrats with one constituency (Asians) and doesn't really yield a ton from others (African and Hispanic Americans). Obviously, a college educated Black person is going to feel more strongly about Affirmative Action than a non-college educated Black person, but largely those positions are locked in.

So, I think we can say that divisions exist between activists and even the populations they purport to represent. I remember DeRay McKesson noting that "Black lives matters" also means good policing that prevents Black lives from being lost to crime. That makes sense. If Black communities are suffering disproportionately from crime, then "Defund the Police" is problematic. 

However, the data point that this is costing Democrats votes is largely confined to 2020 and Hispanics. My thinking on this is that incumbency matters a lot to low information voters and working class folks of any ethnic background tend to be low information voters. I also think that Hispanic communities in Florida that are largely Cuban and Venezuelan are probably deeply anti-Democratic, because the GOP rhetoric about "socialism" actually works on them.

What then to do? I do think that Democrats need to find a way around the Affirmative Action trap. "Going to the mattresses" for a program that isn't really popular with ANYONE is a bad idea. Making college more open to low income families and first generation college students would seem to be a way to square this. There is a first generation Chinese student who could benefit as much as a first generation Black student. 

The other issue Chait points to is support for LGBTQ folks. Sorry, that would seem to be contrary to Democratic values. I don't think EVERY aspect of supporting LGBTQ rights is unquestionable. I think there are legitimate questions about trans athletes, I just don't think it's that big of a deal, as we are talking about cases in the dozens. I think it's probably good to wait to provide irreversible aspects of gender affirming care. But you don't get to tear down Pride flags or endorse book banning. 

The question therefore seems to be not whether there are certain things advocates demand that are politically counterproductive. Of course that happens. The question is just how big a deal it is when the other party is talking about bombing refugee ships, overthrowing elections and dehumanizing gay people entirely.

Activists who succeed couch their agenda in the language of universal rights, not special pleadings. The problem with Affirmative Action is that it came off as a special pleading. It's unclear where the lines are surrounding this when it comes to LGBTQ issues and Chait doesn't really identify a third issue.

So, yeah, build bridges, but know where you're going and why.