Democrats peddling false 'moderation'

By J. Peder Zane
Real Clear Politics

Are Democrats really flipping the campaign sleight-of-hand script – running as radicals but planning to rule as moderates? Or are they just using their court stenographers at the New York Times to provide false comfort to the moderate voters who might decide Tuesday’s close races?

While party leaders are promised a “shock-and-awe legislative sprint” if they take control of the House (and maybe the Senate) in the upcoming midterms, the agenda outlined in the recent Times article, Here’s What Democrats Plan to Do With Their Power if They Win Back Congress, is far more tortoise than hare.

Rather than offering a bold vision for the future, plans shared with the newspaper by aides to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries would undo a few of President Trump’s policy victories during his first two years. They include:

Reinstate expired Affordable Care Act health care premium subsidies.

Reverse the nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts that were included in the president’s domestic policy law.

Move to end Mr. Trump’s tariffs and restore congressional power over trade policy.

Direct Mr. Trump to end the war in Iran or seek authorization from Congress to continue it.

Despite the fiery promises made by candidates on the campaign trail, the Times reports Democrats are not planning to abolish ICE or transform health insurance through Medicare for All. They are pledging to investigate the president and his allies, but even there, impeachment may not be on the table.

Their plans to address the “affordability crisis” do not include eye-popping spending bills, but tepid promises to raise the minimum wage and expand tax credits for companies that build affordable housing and for Americans who earn too little to owe income taxes.

It’s hard to see how such small-beer efforts will put a chicken in every pot. But the message is clear: Don’t be afraid. We’re not radicals.

On the one hand, this may be smart politics; the crucial swing voters who are unhappy with Trump are also wary of socialism. The moment probably calls for calm.

That posture, however, is as mystifying as it is hard to believe. The Democrats’ announced agenda largely ignores the concerns of the middle class. Their promise to unwind some of Trump’s policies would mostly return the playing field back to 2024, when Democrats lost control of the Senate and the White House. It’s hard to see how their plans will significantly lower costs.

Their reported agenda has none of the ambition of the one pursued by President Biden. Despite the transformative left-wing vision laid out by Abdul El-Sayed, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders, Jeffries’ aides are suggesting that they’ve learned the perils of overreach. There’s no talk of trillion-dollar spending bills to address the existential threat of climate change; not a peep about reviving government actions to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion, expanding transgender rights, or once again making social justice the linchpin of the criminal justice system.

Is it possible that the party has abandoned these core beliefs, even as their base appears to have moved sharply to the left? Or are Democrats trying to deceive voters just as they did in 2020 when Joe Biden ran as a moderate only to govern after Inauguration Day as an extremist?

Times reporter Annie Karni only feints at these obvious questions, noting at the end of her article that “different factions [within the party] are also vying to shape the agenda.” In a single line, she reports that “Democrat socialist candidates have campaigned on Medicare for All and abolishing ICE.”

The key question going forward is how much influence this ascendant faction will have over the party’s governance if Democrats return to power. Are they willing to stand down for two years, and betray the fired-up voters who sent them to Washington? Or are they happy to stay silent for the moment as Jeffries peddles false moderation? The Times ignores these obvious questions.

That article is yet another reason why most Americans distrust influential media outlets as much as they do members of Congress. No one with a pulse believes that Democrats have abandoned their radical beliefs, that they have suddenly become boring centrists content to nibble around the edges of American life.

Since Barack Obama’s election in 2008, they have sought to radically transform the country. The progressive vision Obama pursued was only amplified by President Biden. The Times’ own polling shows that a majority of Democrats have a favorable view of socialism. A radical party will rule radically – if it wins power.

Ironically, even as both parties call the other liars, we may be living in a golden age of political truth. For good or ill, President Trump has largely governed as he ran. Where Democrats used to claim libel when their socialist tendencies were called out, they are far more open about their commitment to far-left policies.

That candor makes the obtuseness of the Times article even more troubling. Democracy depends on leaders telling voters what they plan to do, rather than telling them what they think a few swing voters want to hear. Let’s hope they don’t fall for it.

J. Peder Zane is a RealClearInvestigations editor and columnist. He previously worked as a book review editor and book columnist for the News & Observer (Raleigh), where his writing won several national honors. Zane has also worked at the New York Times and taught writing at Duke University and Saint Augustine’s University.