WE ARE grateful for these thoughtful and lively responses. While ranging widely, they all share our conviction that the recent evolution of the Democratic Party is of pressing importance. Many issues deserve attention, but we must be selective. We address two critical issues: the reasons for the Democrats’ particular pivot and the possibilities for developing a successful progressive economic formula.
First, however, some respondents question whether the Democrats’ transformation truly presents a puzzle. Heather Gautney argues that there is no puzzle because the Biden administration did not actually embrace more progressive economic stances. None of the other respondents agree. In dismissing the administration’s broad ambitions—which, as we noted, drew heavily on agreements made with the Sanders campaign in 2020—Gautney says she “thinks” Biden never intended these policies to become law. She provides no evidence for this claim, and it is clearly refuted by the most careful and well-positioned reporting at the time (for example, Franklin Foer’s recent book, The Last Politician: Inside Joe Biden’s White House and the Struggle for America’s Future).
Larry Bartels argues that there is no puzzle because Democrats are not divided along class lines on economic issues. We agree that these divisions can be exaggerated—a point we explored in our piece. And we stress that divisions are likely to be muted if Democrats carefully curate their proposals. Bartels’s evidence that the Biden agenda was popular among all income groups suggests successful curation. It does not prove that there aren’t underlying tensions within the Democratic coalition.