NPR's Michel Martin speaks with CNN senior political analyst Ron Brownstein about the Democratic Party's division over embracing democratic socialism.
One side worries the other is too complacent, too close to corporate interests, too tied to Israel. The other side says that side is too extreme, too angry and will taint the brand. Is it a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party or just the normal friction of a party trying to fight its way back into power? Let's ask veteran political journalist Ron Brownstein. He's a columnist at Bloomberg Opinion and senior political analyst at CNN. And he's with us now. Good morning, Ron. Thanks for joining us.
MARTIN: So a lot of us have been using this shorthand of establishment Democrats or moderates versus progressives to describe some of the primary contests we've seen so far. Does that language really work? Or how would you describe it?
BROWNSTEIN: I think there's a lot of truth in that. And I think there's also a significant generational aspect to what's going on. I mean, I think the desire for generational change in the Democratic Party, after the dispiriting, for Democrats, final act of the Biden presidency, is overwhelming. But, yes, I do think there is a left versus center on policy, on a vision of what the winning coalition is, on the kind of the messaging.
MARTIN: Is there a through line to the results that we've seen so far?
BROWNSTEIN: I think there is a through line. And the through line is that there is no clear winner. Both sides, in the contests that have clearly pit left against center in the Democratic Party, each side has notched significant victories. One thing I will say is that with the very prominent exception of Abdul El-Sayed, by and large, the left breakthroughs have primarily still come in places that are safe, that are deep blue districts.
For the most part – not entirely, but for the most part, Democrats are still relying on more centrist candidates in the places that will likely determine whether they will get the majority back. And I think that's what makes Michigan so important and so revealing, because the left has argued for years, look, if you give us the ball, we can win these swing states. And this is going to be, I think, the biggest, most consequential test of that that we've seen so far.
MARTIN: And that is what kind of leads to the anxiety, fear, anger of people who have been in the game for a long time. Paul Begala was on this program a couple of weeks ago, and this is what he said on this program.
PAUL BEGALA: My biggest worry is that the far left will taint the Democrat brand. Keep in mind, the democratic socialists are not Democrats. They have their own party. And they have their own, to my mind, very eccentric platform, things like no U.S. Senate, no police, no military.
MARTIN: So, obviously, a lot of people disagree with that, in the sense that there are people who share broadly progressive goals, but they don't consider themselves democratic socialists. Does the average voter take people who do embrace that label and apply it to people who don't?
BROWNSTEIN: That is one of the biggest questions in this election. I tend to be skeptical. The issue isn't whether Republicans can try to portray individual candidates who are from the left as being too far left. They are certainly going to try to do that in Michigan. They might try to do that in Maine, where Troy Jackson replaced Graham Platner. But as we said, by and large, the left candidates are running in places where it doesn't matter because they're going to win anyway because they're safe, Democratic districts.
The real issue in November is whether Republicans can hang around the neck of the centrist candidates, who are running in the swing districts, the more eccentric views of the left candidates running in the safe districts. And Republicans are putting a lot of stock on their belief that they can do that. I would just point out that they did try a very similar strategy in 2018. When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the other members of the squad were first elected, they tried to basically tie Democratic candidates everywhere to them and say, you know, if you elect Democrats, this is what you're going to get. And Democrats won over 40 House seats that year.
MARTIN: Do candidates who are running in the more moderate lane as it were, do they have a clear message that they can articulate, that they think is equally compelling or that unifies them?
BROWNSTEIN: I think the answer is no. By and large, the centrists are not challenging the desirability of the ideas of the left. They are basically only challenging the feasibility or the electability of the ideas of the left. It's very similar to what we saw from Hillary Clinton versus Bernie Sanders in 2016, where she didn't really run head on against his agenda and question whether it was something Democrats really would want, even if they could do it. She just basically said, well, we don't have the votes to pass it. Which, in fact, Bernie Sanders said the other day that if there is one litmus test for his support in primaries, it is support for single-payer health care.
And really, I'm unaware of any Democratic candidate running against a single-payer advocate who has taken the strategy of Buttigieg and Biden in 2020 and said, well, how are you going to pay for this? Do you want the federal government, especially in the RFK Jr. era, in control of the health insurance decisions for the entire country? They're not doing that. They're basically just saying, well, you can't get 60 votes, you can't get elected. And I think that's allowed the candidates on the left to take the momentum. And I think that's a real clear lesson for '28, which is that the centrists are going to have to make a case for why their approach is not only more electable, but why it could produce better outcomes.
