Turning affluent suburbs blue is a necessary part of winning back a Democratic majority
newsdepo.com
Over the weekend, the New York Times ran a baffling and potentially harmful opinion piece by two history professors, Lily Geismer and Michael Lessner, titled “Turning Affluent Suburbs Blue Isn't Worth the Cost.” In short, they argue that affluent suburbTurning affluent suburbs blue is a necessary part of winning back a Democratic majority
Over the weekend, the New York Times ran a baffling and potentially harmful opinion piece by two history professors, Lily Geismer and Michael Lessner, titled “Turning Affluent Suburbs Blue Isn't Worth the Cost.” In short, they argue that affluent suburban districts, if they elect Democrats, are likely to elect centrists who won’t pass the kind of progressive legislation that will adequately address economic and racial inequality. The short-term benefits of winning races in those districts, they say, will eventually be outweighed by the long-term harm created from a Democratic congressional caucus that’s too heavy on economic elites and not enough “real Americans.” I’m going to propose a counterargument that may blow some minds with how off-the-wall it is: Maybe Democrats should contest as many races as possible, and try to win elections in as many places as possible, regardless of income, education, or race. There are different aspects to the Democratic agenda that can appeal to different types of people, and historically, electoral success for one party or the other has generally relied on putting up a big tent that can house a broad coalition capable of earning and sustaining a majority. Moreover, this isn’t the right time to be writing off any seats or any capable Democratic candidates because they’re too hot or too cold. Given the existential threats to American democracy currently posed by those in charge of Washington, DC, I can’t even imagine the level of detached privilege that would lead one to say that we shouldn’t try to target some of the seats that are likeliest right now to fall into our grasp, and instead focus on the groundwork for a purer and more perfect party at some point in the future. But even beyond the “well, duh” aspect of needing an all-hands-on-deck majority now to reverse the nation’s slide toward moronic authoritarianism, Geismer and Lessner’s article seems unaware of who lives in these affluent suburbs, who they currently elect, and who’s running to represent them. Their article does cover its historical bases very well, in terms of how we got here—they accurately recount how the suburbs were the destination for white flight, especially against the backdrop of the busing fights in the 1970s, and how Bill Clinton’s turn toward the center in the 1990s was instrumental in getting some of these suburbs into the Democratic column in the first place—but it seems to be all history, with little awareness of the present. Read more