The Ezra Klein Show: "The End of the Obama Coalition"
Host: Ezra Klein, New York Times Opinion
Guest: Michael Lind, Columnist at Tablet, Author of "The New Class War," and Co-founder of New America
Episode Focus: An in-depth discussion on the decline of the Obama-era Democratic coalition, its structural transformations, and the implications for the future of the Democratic Party.
Introduction
[00:29]
Ezra Klein introduces Michael Lind to the show, setting the stage for a conversation about Lind's post-election essay titled "The End of the Obama Coalition." Lind posits that the 2024 election marked the disintegration of the political strategies that Democrats believed would sustain Obama's 2008 and 2012 coalitions, leading to a loss of support among key voter groups such as black, Hispanic, working-class, and union constituencies to Donald Trump.
The Obama Coalition and Its Disintegration
[00:29 - 03:32]
Michael Lind explains that the Obama coalition was not solely built around Barack Obama as a figure but was a network of institutions, power bases, and elite networks. This network, which Lind refers to as the "Obama machine," encompassed urban political support, foundations, nonprofits, and mass media. However, since Obama left office, this machine has functioned without a central figurehead, leading to inefficiencies and weakening the Democratic Party's cohesion.
Lind emphasizes that the Democratic Party now must reconsider its reliance on institutional structures that prioritize the interests of funders and interest groups over the electorate they aim to represent. He suggests that the party needs to "shake free of an institutional structure" that no longer serves its interests and focus more on the populace it is losing.
Evolution of the Obama Machine
[03:32 - 08:31]
Lind delves into the transformation of the Democratic Party during Obama's tenure. He highlights the shift from traditional party structures, such as ward healers and party bosses, to a system dominated by nonprofits focused on service delivery in areas like homelessness and education. This shift resulted in a blended workforce of contractors rather than an increase in civil servants.
He attributes the nationalization of Democratic politics to campaign finance mechanisms, where donors from major Democratic cities like San Francisco, New York, and Chicago exert significant influence over state and local elections, leading to a homogenized Democratic agenda across regions.
The Role of Foundations and Nonprofits
[08:31 - 12:23]
Michael Lind draws parallels between the traditional patronage systems of past political machines and the contemporary influence of foundations and nonprofits in the Democratic Party. Unlike the informal and extralegal job distributions of old political machines, today's patronage operates through bureaucratic means such as categorical directives and funding requirements tied to progressive quotas.
Lind criticizes how major donors and foundation funding shape the definition of progressivism, often excluding topics like collective bargaining and trade unionism from the progressive agenda. This exclusionary approach restricts the Democratic Party's ability to advocate for broader economic policies that might resonate with its traditional voter base.
Notable Quote:
"By merely omitting certain topics, donors can eliminate entire areas from the progressive agenda." — Michael Lind [10:54]
Impact of Social Media and Internet
[19:21 - 25:02]
The conversation shifts to the influence of the internet and social media platforms like Twitter and Reddit in amplifying ideological divisions within the Democratic Party. Lind acknowledges that social media has accelerated the polarization and fragmentation of progressive movements, allowing single-issue groups to gain disproportionate influence over party policies.
He argues that this digital amplification has led to nonprofits pushing agendas that do not necessarily reflect the broader electorate's desires, resulting in policies that alienate key voter groups.
Notable Quote:
"Twitter has been a tremendous accelerator of ideological amplification and division." — Michael Lind [20:45]
Comparison with the Republican Party
[28:38 - 33:00]
Lind contrasts the Democratic Party's institutionalized patronage system with the Republican Party's more transactional and donor-centric approach, especially under Donald Trump. He notes that while Democrats rely heavily on nonprofits and foundations to set their agenda, Republicans tend to engage directly with individual donors, leading to more fluid policy positions based on immediate donor interests.
He points out that this difference may result in Republican policies that are less consistent and more volatile, as they are subject to the changing whims of individual donors rather than being shaped by established institutional priorities.
Challenges and Future Directions for the Democratic Party
[36:15 - 45:18]
Lind discusses the Democratic Party's struggle to balance progressive ambitions with the practicalities of representing a broad electorate. He highlights the party's inability to effectively translate progressive policies into voter-supported platforms, leading to disillusionment among traditional constituents.
He suggests that the Democrats need to revisit their coalitional strategies, possibly by adopting a "big tent" approach that accommodates a wider range of views within the party. This could involve appointing leaders from diverse backgrounds, including government officials and career politicians, rather than exclusively relying on nonprofit and academic influencers.
Notable Quote:
"The Democratic Party must emancipate itself from dependence on nonprofit status and mega donor contributions." — Michael Lind [62:52]
The Influence of Big Donors and Nonprofit Networks
[41:00 - 49:55]
Lind critiques the "nonprofit complex" within the Democratic Party, arguing that it creates a disconnect between the party's leadership and the actual preferences of its diverse voter base. He explains that many nonprofit leaders are not representative of the broader electorate and often advocate for policies that do not align with the majority's interests.
He warns that relying on these nonprofits as proxies for voter desires can lead to policy decisions that alienate core constituencies, ultimately weakening the party's electoral prospects.
Policy Making and Institutional Influence
[46:25 - 55:35]
The discussion extends to Democratic policymaking, particularly focusing on the Biden administration's decarbonization efforts. Lind observes that policy initiatives often stall due to environmental litigation and opposition from specialized interest groups, rather than broader public resistance.
He attributes these obstacles to the Democratic Party's culture of consensus-building with influential nonprofits, which can impede swift and effective policy implementation, even when such policies are deemed crucial for long-term goals like climate change mitigation.
Realignment and Electoral Implications
[55:35 - 64:57]
Lind analyzes the electoral realignment evidenced in the 2024 election, where Republicans narrowly won the presidency despite Democrats performing strongly in the popular vote over previous cycles. He suggests that while realignment may be occurring, it doesn't necessarily favor the Republican Party uniformly due to internal fractures and a lack of cohesive policy direction.
He emphasizes that the Democratic Party's current homogeneous and single-issue-driven approach may hinder its ability to adapt and reclaim lost voter segments, particularly if it continues to prioritize institutional preferences over voter needs.
Recommendations for Revitalizing the Democratic Party
[60:32 - 66:28]
Lind proposes that the Democratic Party needs to reduce its reliance on big donors and nonprofits to regain autonomy in setting its policy agenda. He advocates for electing leaders from swing districts and government backgrounds who are more attuned to the electorate's preferences, rather than those deeply embedded in the nonprofit sector.
He also suggests reinvigorating party structures by fostering leaders who can bridge the gap between progressive ideals and practical voter concerns, ultimately creating a more resilient and representative Democratic coalition.
Notable Quote:
"Political parties must emancipate themselves from dependence on nonprofit status and mega donor contributions to truly represent their constituencies." — Michael Lind [62:52]
Conclusion
Michael Lind's analysis underscores a critical juncture for the Democratic Party, highlighting the need for structural reforms to align institutional influences with voter preferences. The conversation with Ezra Klein provides a comprehensive examination of the internal dynamics that have contributed to the weakening of the Obama coalition and offers insights into potential pathways for revitalizing the party's electoral strength.
Notable Quotes
-
Michael Lind [10:54]:
"By merely omitting certain topics, donors can eliminate entire areas from the progressive agenda." -
Michael Lind [20:45]:
"Twitter has been a tremendous accelerator of ideological amplification and division." -
Michael Lind [62:52]:
"Political parties must emancipate themselves from dependence on nonprofit status and mega donor contributions to truly represent their constituencies."
References
- The Ezra Klein Show Transcript: Detailed discussion between Ezra Klein and Michael Lind on the decline of the Obama coalition and its implications for the Democratic Party.
- Michael Lind's Works: Including "The New Class War" and contributions to Tablet and New America.
This summary encapsulates the primary themes and insights from the podcast episode, providing a comprehensive overview for listeners seeking to understand the evolving dynamics within the Democratic Party post-Obama era.