Fighting for the Soul of the Democratic Party

“Our Revolution continues!” Bernie Sanders proclaimed to a crowd of distraught supporters in a concession speech at the Democratic National Convention. He went on to say that their struggle to create a government that “represents all of us, not just the one percent, continues.” He was met with thunderous applause. At that same convention, he robustly endorsed nominee Hillary Clinton, mostly out of political necessity. Despite broad conflicts on policy and personal character, she was still preferable to Trump. She was received slightly less well by the Bernie crowd, some of whom even chanted Trump’s catchphrase, “Lock her up,” in opposition to Hillary's nomination.

Until recently, the Democratic Party has done a reasonable job concealing the ever-widening gulf within its own ranks. And with Trump in office, it hasn’t been too difficult. For instance, the party is united in opposition to Republican plans on healthcare and tax cuts. But recently, a huge divide over a rather unassuming banking bill has exposed the charade.

The story begins in 2010, when the Senate voted 59-39, mostly along party lines, to place tighter restrictions on banks that were meant to prevent another financial crisis. This past week, the Senate voted to ease some of those rules, with all 51 Republicans and 16 Democrats in favor. Their justification was that over-regulation was hampering growth and didn’t make the nation more secure. Senator Warren, a progressive from Massachusetts and one of the original bill’s greatest champions, denounced the partial repeal, saying that it “doesn’t benefit anyone besides the big banks,” who are able to “get Senators of both parties to do their bidding.”

The divide over this bill is significant because it’s arguably the first time in recent history that the split in the Democratic Party has had real legislative consequences, but is far from the first indication of the rift in the party. Progressive and moderate Democrats share many of the same views: fighting corruption, plugging loopholes in the tax code, and transitioning to renewable energy sources. They also remain united on social issues, both supporting stricter gun control, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and equality for traditionally disadvantaged minorities.

Despite this, a battle over the soul of the Democratic Party between traditional moderates and more militant progressives has been going on for years. And progressives seem increasingly determined to guide the party to the left. At an event last year, Senator Warren claimed, “We [progressives] are not a wing of today’s Democratic Party. We are the heart and soul of today’s Democratic Party.”

These big words have been accompanied by a surge of enthusiasm and activism from the progressive left over the past two years. One thing that has been missing, however, is pragmatism.

Certainly, progressives hold some admirable policy stances. Many backed gay marriage and the LGBT rights movement before mainstream Democrats caught on. Progressive politicians are also free of corruption for the most part, an issue where other Democrats have a less-than-spectacular record. The problem with progressivism is its promotion of easy solutions to complex issues. From free healthcare to free education, many progressive politicians preach the need for more government programs, while avoiding questions as to their funding. The estimated cost of government-funded healthcare in the U.S. ranges from $1.4 trillion to $2.8 trillion—per year. Beyond vague promises to make wealthy Americans “pay their fair share,” progressives refuse to explain how they plan to fund their policy proposals.

Progressives frequently use Scandinavian countries like Sweden as evidence of their policies’ viability. At first glance, they seem correct. Sweden has free healthcare and essentially free education. Those in the top bracket of earners pay their “fair share” to fund these programs in the form of a whopping 56 percent income tax. And for those earning above $2300, it’s a tax of 30 percent of their total income.

Progressives claim that these programs would work in the U.S. because they work in other countries, like Sweden. But the problem is that what they propose is fundamentally different from what does work in other nations. Bernie Sanders’s website proposes a 52 percent income tax for those making $10,000,000 per year. But in Sweden, the top rate applies to everyone earning $76,000 or more yearly, mirroring systems in other European nations. Progressives have been reluctant to admit that adopting huge government programs would require big tax increases for everybody. And not many Americans would be willing to shell out over half of their income in taxes.

In fact, according to numerous surveys, around 15 percent of Americans identify as progressive, far from an electoral majority. Progressive politicians simply aren’t popular enough to be elected in the numbers required to pass legislation. They could, however, derail mainstream Democrats’ attempts to retake control of government in the 2018 midterm elections by encouraging supporters to vote for other candidates.

Beyond being elected, a divided Democratic party could have serious problems actually creating legislation. Take one of the most contentious issues, healthcare, where the party is sharply divided between those seeking Obamacare reform and flat-out universal healthcare. We’ve already seen the effects this kind of division can have, when Republicans failed to reform Obamacare despite having complete control of the federal government due to divisions on what reforms should be implemented.

While progressives continue their crusade for justice in America’s political system, they should remember that their self-proclaimed goal is improving quality of life for all Americans. Progressives should rally behind the movement that has a shot at enacting real change in America rather than pushing fantastical ideas supported by a small minority of Americans.