It’s Not as Simple As Saying ‘No’ to Interest Groups

Let me return to something I wrote about yesterday and said I’d return to: Adam Jentleson’s piece in the Times on whether the Democratic party can learn to say no to interest groups that often demand assent to various positions and commitments that are either obscure or toxic to a majority of voters. Trans rights aren’t the only issue Jentleson was talking about. But the larger debate clearly revolves around the ad the Trump campaign ran against Kamala Harris saying she supported tax payer-funded sex change operations/gender affirming care for prisoners. This was a question Harris checked “yes” to on an ACLU candidate questionnaire 2019 as part of her 2020 run for the presidential nomination. There is at least the perception among some that it played a non-trivial role in turning the campaign against her

As a general matter I agree with Jentleson’s point. Not specifically about trans rights issues but more generally. The goal of parties and campaigns is first to win elections.

But I can’t say that without noting some recent history.

Want to keep reading?

Join TPM and get The Backchannel member newsletter along with unlimited access to all TPM articles and member features.