Democrats have a chance for a Sister Soulja moment

They need to articulate their values and push back on a left that's alienating the middle

This may be the last newsletter until after the holidays. I’m heading to Sweden to visit my daughter and her family. I’ll send dispatches if I have time, but I’m not making any promises. In the meantime, if you haven’t become a paid subscriber but have been thinking about it, ‘tis the season. For those who have become paid subscribers, thanks for your support. If you’re enjoying what you read, share it and pass it along. Happy holidays!

The controversy over the Ivy League presidents who did not seem to be able to condemn antisemitism or defend the First Amendment offers an opportunity for Democrats similar to Bill Clinton’s Sister Souljah moment. It’s a chance to clarify values that defined the Democratic Party for much of the New Deal era, including a strong defense of the First Amendment. It’s also a chance to push back against an illiberal left-flank that is alienating swing voters. Democrats need to build a big tent that is inclusive because, as we like to say, diversity is our strength.

For years, leftists on campuses have been taking pride in shutting down conservative speakers with college administrations either looking the other way or sanctioning the bans. The University of San Diego banned conservative commentator Matt Walsh this year, calling his views “grossly offensive.” A few years ago, conservative academic Charles Murray was chased from the Middlebury College campus. Last year, Ann Coulter was shut down by Cornell students yelling “Your words are violence”. The culture on campuses has become oppressive and the Ivy League presidents’ testimony reflected these confused and grossly misguided sentiments.

But it hasn’t always been that way. For much of the Cold War, campuses were shutting down left-leaning speakers with the support of government and college administrators. At UNC in the 1960s, students pushed back and gave the grown ups a lesson in free speech.

Back in 1963, the North Carolina legislature passed a bill banning speakers on state campuses who were communists, advocated the overthrow of the government, or took the fifth amendment when testifying about their membership in communist organizations. Over a couple of years, numerous prominent people were denied the right to speak. In 1966, the group Students for a Democratic Society invited two communists to speak on campus but the administration banned them from appearing. To dramatize the controversy, Student Body President Paul Dickson, in cahoots with UNC President Bill Friday, had the two communists speak on the public sidewalk separated from campus by a stone wall, behind which students gathered to listen on university property. The event set in motion a federal lawsuit that found the Speaker Ban Law in violation of the First Amendment.

The lawsuit had nothing to do the political views of the banned speakers. Graham and Dickson almost certainly disagreed with the two communists. The point of the First Amendment, though, is that speech is protected no matter how odious and Graham and Dickson thought that it should especially be protected on college campuses, the place where our great intellectual debates play out.

Those three Ivy League presidents could have taken a lesson from the Speaker Ban story. Instead, they equivocated in front of Congress, never really articulating their values or the aims of the scholarly institutions they represent. They managed to unite liberals and conservatives in their criticism of the presidents.

Joe Biden and the White House condemned their testimony. Democrats in Congress expressed outrage. And they should have.

As Nate Silver pointed out, a wedge is developing between what he calls Social Justice Leftists, or SJL for short, and traditional liberals. The SJL crowd is less tolerant and more authoritarian, demanding adherence to narrow viewpoints, especially around race, gender, and sexual identity. They aren’t too enamored with free speech or democracy. They want adherence to their worldview.

They are also the main reason so many otherwise middle-of-the-road voters are wary of Democrats. They have managed to define the Democratic Party as adhering to strict identity politics. They have moved academic terminology and philosophy from the Ivory Tower to the street protest. They use terms like “intersectionality” and demand that we be actively “anti-racist,” not passively non-racist. They believe in trigger warnings and safe spaces. They are judgmental, condemning, and easily offended, alienating a broad swath of the middle class that’s more concerned with paying the bills, getting their kids to school on time, and having a little bit of time to themselves than uncovering discrimination or oppression in every institution.

Traditional liberals have a more libertarian view of the world, putting an emphasis on the rights of individuals instead of the rights of groups. They believe in equality more than equity. They believe inclusive means different viewpoints, not just different skin colors or gender identity. Their view of free speech aligns with the folks who challenged the Speaker Ban Law.

Silver believes that divide will be bad for Democrats. I believe it’s an opportunity. Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman seems to get it. He’s pushing back against his left flank and articulating his values. He’s stood strong in his support for Israel and he supports getting a deal on border security. He’s called on ethically challenged Democratic Senator Bob Menendez to resign. He was quick to slam the three Ivy League presidents for their weak performance before Congress. And he’s an unabashed supporter of working class Americans.

Most of Fetterman’s positions resonate with a broad audience, far beyond the Democratic base. Other Democrats need to follow suit. Despite what we hear about polarization there’s still a large moderate middle in this country. They don’t like either party because they believe both are controlled by their extremes. With the GOP, they are right. MAGA has taken control of the party. With Democrats, the leadership, people like Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and Hakeem Jeffries, has let itself get defined by protesting SJL types. They need to push back hard.

The middle in America is looking for a home. They don’t like either side but it says something that a lot of them prefer MAGA to the social justice warriors.

Traditional liberal Democrats should use this moment to define themselves and their values instead of trying to make peace with their authoritarian left flank. They should clearly articulate their values like supporting equality and opposing discrimination. They should support the First Amendment, regardless of how ugly the speech may be. (Remember, the ACLU defended the Nazi’s right to march in Skokie, Illinois.) They should vigorously support democracy, both at home and abroad. They should keep their promises and commitments to their allies, especially when they come under attack. They should denounce the people who oppose those values. There may be others, but these core values should be promoted by the Democratic leadership.

Right now, too much of the American public believes both parties have become too extreme. In reality, Republicans are controlled by the right, but Democrats are only defined the left. The Democratic leadership is still solidly in the mainstream of American politics. They need to let the public know who they are. Picking a fight with the social justice warriors and the institutions that support them is a good way to begin to redefine themselves and build a bigger party.