1,599 844 �Joshua Green

Bloomberg Businessweek (North America) - - Politics / Policy -

of pol­icy ideas that lie closer to the hearts of most Demo­cratic vot­ers— and es­pe­cially the Demo­cratic vot­ers of the fu­ture—than Clin­ton’s do. That’s why the “rev­o­lu­tion” he’s re­peat­edly called for won’t be quelled for long, even though Clin­ton will be the one ac­cept­ing the party’s nom­i­na­tion in Philadel­phia. This is as much a de­mo­graphic cer­tainty as a political one.

In their 2002 book, The Emerg­ing Demo­cratic Ma­jor­ity, John Judis and Ruy Teix­eira pre­dicted that Democrats would en­joy an ad­van­tage in na­tional elec­tions be­cause the ma­jor de­mo­graphic groups that make up their coali­tion ( young peo­ple, mi­nori­ties, and sin­gle white women) were all grow­ing as a per­cent­age of the elec­torate, while the groups that Repub­li­cans rely on (mar­ried white peo­ple and se­niors) weren’t keep­ing pace. This proved pre­scient. In 2008 and then 2012, Barack Obama suc­cess­fully ac­ti­vated what the jour­nal­ist Ron Brown­stein dubbed the “coali­tion of the as­cen­dant” to win the White House.

Yet the rise of this new coali­tion has also had un­der­ap­pre­ci­ated pol­icy im­pli­ca­tions. “The groups that dom­i­nate the party now are dif­fer­ent than the ones that dom­i­nated 20 years ago—they’re fur­ther left,” says Teix­eira. In­deed, mil­len­ni­als, mi­nori­ties, and sin­gle white women all fa­vor a more ac­tivist and in­ter­ven­tion­ist govern­ment, par­tic­u­larly in the eco­nomic realm, than do other Democrats. Con­sider:

• A 2011 All­state/na­tional Jour­nal Heart­land Mon­i­tor study found that black, Latino, and Asian vot­ers were twice as likely as white vot­ers to say that govern­ment should play “an ac­tive role in reg­u­lat­ing the mar­ket­place.”

• A 2015 an­nual sur­vey of col­lege fresh­men con­ducted by the Univer­sity of Cal­i­for­nia at Los An­ge­les found that more stu­dents iden­ti­fied as “lib­eral” than at any time since 1973.

• A De­cem­ber Democ­racy Corps poll found that un­mar­ried white women fa­vor Clin­ton over Trump by 27 points, while their mar­ried coun­ter­parts pre­fer Trump by 12 points.

Th­ese groups not only fa­vor more lib­eral poli­cies, they’re grow­ing im­pa­tient for them. “They’re fed up with the lack of progress,” says Teix­eira. In hind­sight, it shouldn’t be quite so sur­pris­ing that San­ders won more than 80 per­cent of vot­ers un­der 30 in Iowa, New Hamp­shire, and Ne­vada, or that young sin­gle women have flocked to him rather than Clin­ton. “There’s grow­ing ev­i­dence that th­ese groups are open to the bold­est pos­si­ble re­forms,” says Demo­cratic poll­ster Stan­ley Green­berg. “But they won’t en­gage un­less they think you’re lead­ing from the out­side and will­ing to break down this sys­tem in which mon­eyed in­ter­ests dom­i­nate govern­ment.” San­ders fit the bill.

To her credit, Clin­ton rec­og­nized this shift in the Demo­cratic coali­tion and moved to ac­com­mo­date it. She has em­braced same-sex mar­riage, crim­i­nal jus­tice re­form, and tighter Wall Street reg­u­la­tions, while spurn­ing calls to cut en­ti­tle­ment pro­grams— a main­stream Demo­cratic po­si­tion as re­cently as a few years ago. “[You] de­serve a pres­i­dent who will pro­tect, and then ex­pand, So­cial Se­cu­rity for those who need it most, not cut or pri­va­tize it,” Clin­ton de­clared in her March 15 vic­tory speech. Most strik­ing, she’s turned against the Trans-pa­cific Part­ner­ship, a trade deal she helped ne­go­ti­ate as sec­re­tary of state.

All this looks as if it will be enough to se­cure her the nom­i­na­tion. It may not be enough to sat­isfy Demo­cratic vot­ers un­der a fu­ture Clin­ton ad­min­is­tra­tion. “Mi­nor­ity vot­ers, un­mar­ried sin­gle women—th­ese vot­ers are very open to big poli­cies,” says Green­berg, who lays out his own pre­dic­tions in a new book, Amer­ica As­cen­dant. “Whether it’s in­vest­ment taxes, chang­ing cor­po­rate gov­er­nance, or pro­gres­sive in­come tax­a­tion, they are sup­port­ive of the broad­est pos­si­ble changes.”

The ris­ing Demo­cratic coali­tion will con­tinue to grow. Green­berg es­ti­mates that 73 per­cent of likely Demo­cratic vot­ers al­ready be­long to this group. Take mil­len­ni­als, San­ders’s most ar­dent sup­port­ers. Eight years ago, when Obama first ran, many weren’t el­i­gi­ble to vote. This year they’re as large a share of the vot­ing-age pop­u­la­tion as baby boomers. By 2020, when a Pres­i­dent Clin­ton would come up for re­elec­tion, mil­len­ni­als will eas­ily out­num­ber them.

The im­por­tant thing to un­der­stand is that San­ders is a ve­hi­cle, not the cat­a­lyst, for the in­creas­ing lib­er­al­ism of the Demo­cratic elec­torate. No one should make the mis­take of as­sum­ing that just be­cause he’ll go away, the agenda he speaks for will, too. “San­ders isn’t just a flash in the pan,” say Teix­eira. “His suc­cess in­di­cates some­thing much deeper. For bet­ter or for worse, the Demo­cratic Party is a party in flux and mov­ing in a more pro­gres­sive di­rec­tion. And if you’re go­ing to lead the party, you ig­nore those el­e­ments of dis­con­tent at your peril.”

in­clud­ing 467 su­perdel­e­gates

in­clud­ing 26 su­perdel­e­gates The Kochs’ ral­ly­ing cry for Lati­nos

Ari­zona’s GOP clamps down on lo­cal gen­eros­ity A D.C. power strug­gle over power

Ted Cruz’s stealth weapon against Trump The bot­tom line Hil­lary Clin­ton will win the Demo­cratic nom­i­na­tion, but the party’s fu­ture lies with Bernie San­ders’s sup­port­ers.

the GOP politi­cians who have said the Se­nate shouldn’t hold hear­ings on any­one Obama nom­i­nates, added that the pres­i­dent “prob­a­bly won’t do that be­cause this ap­point­ment is about the elec­tion.” In­stead, Hatch spec­u­lated, Obama would nom­i­nate some­one to please the Demo­cratic base.

On March 16, Obama called Hatch’s bluff, an­nounc­ing his nom­i­na­tion of Gar­land, the cen­trist chief judge of the U.S. ap­peals court in Wash­ing­ton, D.C. Fol­low­ing Se­nate Ma­jor­ity Leader Mitch Mccon­nell, Hatch promptly dou­bled down and said law­mak­ers should stonewall the Gar­land nom­i­na­tion. “Do­ing so will keep what should be a se­ri­ous con­fir­ma­tion dis­cus­sion from be­com­ing den­i­grated by the toxic pol­i­tics of this elec­tion sea­son,” Hatch said in a state­ment on his web­site. “This ap­proach to the Se­nate’s ad­vise­and-con­sent role isn’t about the in­di­vid­ual the pres­i­dent has cho­sen,” the Repub­li­can added. “It’s about the broader prin­ci­ple.”

By send­ing Gar­land into the par­ti­san mael­strom, Obama has made the bat­tle about a par­tic­u­lar in­di­vid­ual, one who will test the Repub­li­can strat­egy of max­i­mum ob­struc­tion. In a Rose Gar­den cer­e­mony, the pres­i­dent said that in dis­cus­sions about Supreme Court va­can­cies dur­ing his White Houseuse ten­ure, “the one name that has comeome up re­peat­edly, from Repub­li­cans ns and Democrats alike, is Mer­rick errick Gar­land.” (Obama pre­vi­ous­lye­vi­ously passed over Gar­land nd to se­lect two women jus­tices stices who are per­ceived as more re­li­ably lib­eral: Ka­gan and So­nia So­tomayor.)

Obama high­lighted Gar­land’s su­per­vi­sion, un­der the Clin­ton ad­min­is­tra­tion,ation, of the fed­er­all in­ves­ti­ga­tion into to the 1995 Ok­la­homa homa City bombing­ing and the suc­cess­ful sful pros­e­cu­tion n of home­grown wn ter­ror­ist Ti­mothy othy Mcveigh. Be­tween U.S. Depart­ment tment of Jus­tice stints, nts, Gar­land was a part­ner ner at a cor­po­rate law firm in Wash­ing­ton.n.

At 63, Gar­land, a judge for the past 19 years, would be the old­est Supreme Court nom­i­nee since Pres­i­dent Richard Nixon chose 64-year-old Lewis Pow­ell in 1971—a fac­tor that un­der or­di­nary cir­cum­stances might en­dear him to Repub­li­cans, who would pre­fer jus­tices ap­pointed by Democrats not to stay on the bench for very long. For all Gar­land’s ide­o­log­i­cal mod­er­a­tion, though, his in­stal­la­tion in Scalia’s place would un­doubt­edly tilt the court to the left, giv­ing Demo­cratic-ap­pointed jus­tices a 5-4 ad­van­tage that could lead to lib­eral vic­to­ries on such top­ics as abor­tion, af­fir­ma­tive ac­tion, cam­paign fi­nance, and regulation of busi­ness.

The other re­ported fi­nal­ists for the Scalia va­cancy were Sri Srini­vasan, an In­dian-born col­league of Gar­land’s on the D.C. ap­pel­late bench, and Paul Wat­ford, a black judge on the U.S. ap­peals court based in San Fran­cisco. Of the three, Tom Gold­stein, a prom­i­nent ap­pel­late lawyer in Wash­ing­ton and co-founder of the Scotusblog web­site, ranked Gar­land as the best qual­i­fied and, the Repub­li­can road­block not­with­stand­ing, the most con­firmable. Gar­land, Gold­stein w wrote be­fore the an­nounce­ment, is “es­sen­tially from cen­tral cast­ing.”

As an in­ter­me­di­ate-lev­elin­terme ap­pel­late judge, Garla Gar­land has gen­er­ally de­ferred to fed­eral reg­u­la­tory agen­cies in their con­fronta­tions with busi­ness. He wrote for his court in 2015 when it up­held a 75-year-old ban on fed­er­alfed con­trac­tors makin mak­ing fed­eral cam­paign con­tri­bu­tions. In oth other cases, he’s led pan­els that backed the Na­tion Na­tional La­bor Re­la­tions Board when it or­dered an In­di­anapolisIn­d com­pany to reins re­in­state work­ers who were fire fired af­ter hold­ing a strike to protest ac­tions taken agai against a co-worker, and when the NLRB ruled against a Cal­i­for­nia lum­ber sup­plier t that with­drew recog­ni­tion of a union.

Given Repub­li­cans’ in­tran­si­gence, Gar­land’s most salient char­ac­ter­is­tic might be his proven will­ing­ness to wait. Pres­i­dent Clin­ton first named him to fill a va­cancy on the D.C. ap­peals court in 1995, but the nom­i­na­tion lan­guished be­fore a Repub­li­can­con­trolled Se­nate whose ma­jor­ity said the Wash­ing­ton court had too many mem­bers. Af­ter win­ning re­elec­tion in Novem­ber 1996, Clin­ton renom­i­nated Gar­land. In March 1997, he fi­nally won ap­proval in a 76-23 vote; Repub­li­cans who op­posed him said it wasn’t per­sonal, and they were merely protest­ing an un­nec­es­sary judge­ship. If a Demo­crat is elected this fall, Gar­land could fol­low a sim­i­lar path to a seat on the top court. �Paul M. Bar­rett

Age Home­town Chicago Education Har­vard BA in so­cial stud­ies, 1974; JD, 1977

Se­cond Cir­cuit Judge Henry Friendly; Supreme Court Jus­tice Wil­liam Bren­nan The bot­tom line The nom­i­nee for Scalia’s va­cant Supreme Court seat was pre­vi­ously en­dorsed by Or­rin Hatch, who now op­poses hear­ings.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.