Can Dems Offer an Inspiring, Unifying Vision for America's Future? Part II
Immigration
Immigration was one of the salient issues in the 2024 presidential race, and one upon which commentators, as well as most Democrats, are in agreement that the Left was seriously backfooted. Immigration could almost be said to be the poster child for we Democrats’ practice of building a fractured coalition from disparate “identity” and other special-interest groups, rather than stressing a message aimed at the broad mass of working Americans. Immigration also offers a prime example of how this practice (of hobbling together a constituency from special interest groups) can lead to major philosophical incoherence, and the attendant disconnect from the average voter. More commentators friendly to the Left are now willing to say that the immigration policies pursued by the Biden administration very closely approximated “open borders.” That is, virtually anyone who could get within U.S. borders, legally or illegally, or stayed within them after a visa expired, was basically here for good. The Biden administration, and many who consider themselves “progressives,” promoted this policy for a couple of reasons. First, an essential aspect of the world view of many self-styled “progressives” is that since “white” people historically oppressed “people of color,” any claim made by those speaking for “persons of color” (in this case Latino activist groups like Unidos, who essentially consider any enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States to be a wanton human rights violation) must be supported. (A related aspect of this narrative is that since the global “north” historically oppressed the “global south,” the “global north” owes the “global south.”) For progressives racialized (by self and others) as “white,” there is a major virtual-signaling premium in standing with those one has come to believe, or that others in one’s social and social-media environment believe, are being oppressed by ARWs (Americans racialized as “white”). Obversely, to fail to ardently support any claim made by such groups is to risk being labeled a “racist,” backward, and socially ostracized. Far easier to offer full-throated support to any demand made by anyone representing any group other than ARWs. As my friend Bob once said to me, the problem with us Democrats is we don’t know how to say “no.”
Let me be clear. I love immigrants and everything they bring to this country. But I also believe that the United States government, like that of every other nation on this planet, has not only a right, but a duty, to control its borders. Kamala Harris eventually came around to saying this in the summer of 2024, sheer desperation finally overcoming a deeply ingrained tendency of all Democratic politicians to avoid making honest statements about immigration. A personal story is apt here. In the years surrounding the turn of the century, I made three trips to the beautifully preserved colonial town, and UNESCO world heritage site, of San Miguel de Allende, Mexico. My chief purpose was to improve my Spanish capacities at the Instituto Allende, but I also fell in love with both the town and its people. On my second trip there, about six weeks into my two-month stay, I was surprised to be hailed, as I returned from the Instituto, by the front-desk attendant at my posada, who said that someone had left me a letter. Intrigued, I opened it immediately and discovered that it was from the Mexican government. The letter requested my presence at a government office on the edge of town, and I went there the following day. I was ushered into the office of a typically courteous Mexican gentleman who told me that he just wanted to see my passport and airline tickets, and to remind me that I was on a 60-day tourist visa and was expected to be on my flight—and out of fair Mexico—before that visa’s term expired. I told him that I had every intention of doing that—and I did. It would never have occurred to me to defy the Mexican government, and by extension the sovereign people of Mexico, by staying in their country surreptitiously after they had graciously allowed me to visit. I would have had a hard time looking any Mexican citizen in the eye, whom I respected and liked, knowing that I was disregarding the laws their elected representatives had passed; and would have felt that I was questioning whether the Mexican government, and the people of Mexico, really possessed sovereignty over their territory. By the same token, I have little respect for foreign nationals who show no regard for the laws of the United States.
Aside from such philosophical considerations, there are real practical reasons why we should control our borders. Donald Trump is a lying, vulgar, low sociopath and I wouldn’t for a moment want to validate his hostile tone toward migrants who have brought so much to our country. But he and his supporters were absolutely right about one thing: if we are not controlling our borders, we have no idea who is coming into the country, for what purposes, nor what they are bringing with them. The Biden administration allowed nearly two million illegal border crossings each year of his administration; in a few of short months, the Trump administration has reduced that flood to a trickle (there were only 7,000 illegal crossings registered in March 2025, as against nearly 200,000 in the average month of the Biden administration). I of course decry Trump’s lies and illegal proceedings (anyone in the U.S. is entitled to due process, including foreign nationals), but the president of the United States takes an oath of office to “faithfully” execute the laws of the United States. President Biden did not faithfully execute U.S. laws prohibiting entering the country at places other than designated border crossings. He missed, in fact, by about 2,000,000 per year. If Trump has demonstrated one thing, it is that a U.S. president can control the border if the will exists. As commentator David Frum has astutely remarked on X, “If liberals insist that enforcing borders is a job only fascists will do, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't.”
And this brings me to the philosophical incoherence of the position taken by many “progressives” on immigration. We Democrats consider ourselves to be strong believers in the “rule of law.” We promote this stance abroad, where we oppose dictators who rule by whim, and we are furious—no one more than I—at Donald Trump’s continual breaching of legal boundaries. At the same time, many in the Democratic camp have been entirely tolerant of migrants illegally breaching our borders (2,000,000 times per year) or overstaying their visas, while resisting every effort (the “wall,” for example) aimed at either preventing this wholesale law-breaking or penalizing it (if by nothing harsher than simply telling people who have entered the country illegally that they must leave). This leaves us Democrats open to a laughably easy charge of hypocrisy. Do we actually believe in the rule of laws, or only those laws that align with our preferences (and the demands of our interest-group constituencies)? Do we really think presidents of the United States should “faithfully execute” laws passed by Congress, or only ones they like, as does Donald Trump? Or perhaps we believe that Democratic presidents should only execute the laws they like, but Republican presidents must execute all of the laws?
Democratic politicians who promote “sanctuary” policies at the state and local level are only slightly less coherent than a president, like Biden, who makes little or no attempt to actually enforce U.S. law on immigration. While there is a constitutional question—soon to be ruled on by the Supreme Court, no doubt—as to whether the federal government can require state and local governments to assist it in enforcing federal immigration laws, there is certainly a very confused optic when state and local politicians make it plain that they intend to thwart, in any way they can, efforts of federal agencies to enforce federal immigration laws. In the 1950s and 60s, when Southern governors, in the name of “states rights,” attempted to prevent federal officers from enforcing laws prohibiting segregation, we Democrats took the position—the only correct one, of course—that if you are part of the United States of America, you can’t opt out of federal laws you don’t like. As noted, sanctuary politicians may have a constitutional case whereby they are not required to actually assist federal agents in enforcing the nation’s immigration laws, but the moral-ethical principle isn’t really different than the more clear case of resisting the enforcing of federal law. If you are part of these United States, the laws passed by the United States Congress are your laws; and if you are a public official, you should offer any possible assistance in seeing them enforced. I strongly believe that we should reform our immigration laws, and as part of that find a way to regularize the status of many non-citizens who reside in the country without proper authorization. But the proper path to that outcome, for those of us committed to the rule of laws, is to pass new laws, not to ignore or circumvent the ones we have on the books. In doing this, don’t sanctuary city politicians simply provide Donald Trump (and his co-conspirators in destroying our democracy) with a perfect retort to claims that they act outside the law?
Immigration is a serious issue dividing American working people: that group or voters, remember, whom we should be aiming to unite in order to create a multi-decade super-majority for a just, humane and radically inclusive social democracy. Democrats’ approach to immigration has annoyed Americans of a more traditional mindset in many ways, and I understand their concerns. First, as I have just described, Democrats’ approach to immigration has endorsed the disregard of our laws. Not only is this incoherent with our Party’s professed dedication to the “rule of law,” but following the law is something very much at the heart of a traditional American value set. I, and everyone around me raised in the 1950s and 60s, was taught to revere—and fear—our laws, and to support their enforcement. We were taught about a “civic contract” whereby ordinary citizens are enabled to democratically chose those who make our laws; in exchange, it was our duty to obey them. And this conception of our common life is not confined to older Americans: many Boomers have inculcated these same values in their children—and I applaud that. To see “progressives” and Democratic politicians cheering on those who brazenly, knowingly break our immigration laws (as they gleefully wade across the Rio Grande) creates a serious sense of disconnect with many average Americans. They conclude that Democrats don’t share the values they were raised by, that they must operate in some other cultural universe where following laws is not considered important. Our elections are being determined more and more by whether you think the candidate asking for your vote shares a similar “culture” to yours, and not without reason. “Culture” is that set of rules, values and attitudes that people living in a society together share, and it enables us to interact with others based upon these shared assumptions. When we don’t feel we can count on shared assumptions—when we feel another person does not share our culture and our values—we don’t trust them. In fact, culture’s most important function is probably this very enabling of trust. In positioning ourselves as people who don’t believe following the law is important, we Democrats mark ourselves as being part of a different “culture” than most Americans, and we lose (and have lost) their trust. In fact, the very incoherence I described earlier (that we claim to believe in the rule of law, but in some cases seem to validate ignoring the rule of law) itself erodes trust. When someone’s actions contradict their stated values and beliefs, we quickly learn to write them off as BS artists.
The standard modern ”progressive” Democrat approach to immigration—that is, de facto open borders—alienates the average American worker in other ways as well. Those of us who are highly informed may know that immigrants, over time, actually bring economic benefits to our country. In the short term, however, immigrants who cross our borders illegally, without family or sponsors in the U.S., require large outlays of taxpayer dollars to house and feed them, and to provide them medical care, transportation and other services. There are in addition major costs involved in mounting legal hearings and, when required, deportations. We should not be surprised if working Americans—and particularly “working-class” Americans, often living in economic precariousness—object to so much public moneys being spent on non-citizens when our own citizens’ needs are not being adequately addressed. And when un-documented aliens, willing to work for low wages, compete with working-class Americans for jobs, there is additional reason for resentment. The fact that these recipients of public moneys and economic competitors have knowingly and brazenly broken our laws provides further grounds for indignation.
If we on the Left want to have a chance to build a super-majority for a more complete social democracy in America, we will need to change our messaging on immigration. We will never, of course, descend into the scapegoating, vilification, lying, xenophobia, chauvinism and scare-tactics employed by the Maga Right in the immigration debate, nor would we ever suggest denying anyone in the United States the protection of the Due Process clause of our constitution’s Fifth Amendment. Such things are not in the DNA of the Democratic Party. But there are many ways that we can bridge the immigration divide with traditional-culture Americans and still remain true to our core principles.
The first core principle we must remain true to is our dedication to the rule of law. The president of the United States, as chief of our federal government’s executive branch, takes an oath to “faithfully” execute laws passed by Congress. Existing federal statutes make it illegal both to cross our borders other than at authorized crossing points, and also to remain in the country after a valid visa has expired. We Democrats’ should expect nothing less than that any president, Democrat or Republican, honor their inaugural oath by faithfully executing all laws passed by Congress, including those pertaining to immigration. If this means deporting non-U.S.-citizens who are in the country illegally, so be it. It is not the job of a United States president to decide which laws they wish to enforce and which they do not wish to enforce (this is, or course, what Donald Trump is attempting do to in manifold areas, much to our chagrin and righteous outrage). And if it means making it harder to cross our borders illegally—either with physical barriers, with greater law enforcement presence, or both—then we should support that as well. Such a stance will greatly strengthen the image of the Democratic Party as one that stands by its commitment to the rule of law, and also one who honors our constitution’s separation or powers: Congress makes laws, the executive “faithfully” executes them. As to “sanctuary” states and municipalities, the same commitment to the rule of law should dictate that state and local officials do anything within their power to assist federal agencies in enforcing federal law in their jurisdictions.
At the same time that we support the proper application of existing immigration law, we Democrats should be vigorously campaigning for major immigration reform. The most pressing issue regards the estimated 11 million immigrants currently in the country with no legal status. There is widespread consensus that the vast majority of these migrants bring benefit to our communities and nation, working in vital trades or operating businesses, paying taxes into government coffers and raising children who will be a vital part of America’s success in the future. This provides a practical reason why we should not want to deport them. To cite one example of our reliance on undocumented immigrants, about half of the nation’s farm workers lack legal status, and farm owners are unanimous that our crops could not be harvested without them. The situation is different in degree, but not in kind, in the construction, hospitality and other sectors.
And aside from such practical, self-interested reasons for allowing undocumented workers to remain in the United States, there is a moral-ethical reason. That reason is not, to my mind, that we must, as a moral imperative, accept all immigrants who want to come into the country at any given time, a proposition with which I do not agree. It is rather more complicated than that. The fact is that successive governments, for the past several decades, have colluded in a double game. They have maintained laws on our books that make 11 million migrants illegal and subject to deportation. At the same time, they have refused to do anything effective to enforce those laws (by actually closing off illegal crossings, deporting the undocumented, or prosecuting businesses that illegally employ them). They have declined to enforce these laws because they know, that by doing so, they will cause grievous harm to our economy and, in the case of Democrats, alienate a crucial part of its hobbled-together, identities-based coalition. We have acknowledged the presence of these liminal new Americans in our midst, telling them they are “illegal,” but with a wink and nod suggesting that we’re not really going to do anything about it—and incidentally, please do stay on, at least for now. As a consequence, we now have millions of non-status fellow human beings among us who have fostered careers, started businesses, gotten married and raised families: in short, have built entire, and in some cases, decades-long lives in the United States. There are even many “illegal” immigrants (the “dreamers”), now adults, who were born and have spent their entire lives here. It would be reprehensible to uproot these people and their families (or in some case, separate their families) when the American government has been completely complicit, for self-interested reasons, in creating this situation.
There is a clear way forward on immigration, through this miasma of conflicting elements, for a Democratic Party wishing to bridge our traditional-modern and rural-urban divides and build a super-majority for robust social democracy in America. First, we must remain true to our commitment to the rule of law. That means we should recognize not only the right, but the duty of an American president to “faithfully” execute laws passed by Congress: including those concerning immigration, even if this means deporting undocumented aliens whom we would rather see remain. The solution to having laws we don’t like is not for the executive to not enforce them, but to pass new laws, and we should be focusing our efforts on legislation that fixes the immigration mess. Such legislation should be based upon the practical fact that the vast majority of the 11 million undocumented aliens in the country are providing considerable benefit to our society, and we would be fools to expel them. At the same time, we do not want to damage the Democratic brand nor traduce our core principles by suggesting that we don’t believe that duly enacted laws must be followed by citizens and non-citizens alike. Giving credence both of these factors—on the one hand, the practical and moral benefits of allowing productive, law-abiding undocumented immigrants to remain in the country and, on the other, our commitment to the rule of law—Democrats should propose legislation that will regularize the status of most non-citizens in the country illegally, but also recognize that these people have indeed broken our laws, something that usually comes with a penalty. First, all immigrants who have been convicted of crimes in the United States or in their home countries, other than immigration, traffic and other minor offenses, should be subject to immediate deportation. Second, migrants who have been in the country for less than four years would be subject to immediate deportation. Third, migrants who have been in the country for longer than four years, with a regular employment history, or who are not dependent upon social support, would be offered permanent residency status, subject to the payment of a $10,000 fine for knowingly violating U.S. immigration law (this fine could be paid in installments over a period of seven years; at the end of that period, migrants who had not been convicted of crimes in the interim would be eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship). Such a regime, subject to the tweaking of details and necessary refinements for special cases, would help bridge our political divides on several counts. It recognizes the real, material benefits most undocumented migrants are bringing to our nation. It removes individuals who have committed serious crimes, and as such are not desirable as fellow citizens. It gives a proper nod to our commitment to the rule of law, particularly important to traditional-culture voters, in requiring those who have broken our immigration laws to pay a penalty. And it offers a path to citizenship, thereby ending the twilight status of too many new Americans. From the point of view of building our super majority of working Americans, polling suggests that solid majorities of Americans would support this approach: they don’t wish to see hard-working, law-abiding immigrants deported, but they don’t like seeing law-breaking condoned, they want an orderly immigration process, and they don’t wish to support the idle.
Abortion
Though it didn’t play as great a role in the recent elections as many thought it would, the topic of abortion remains one of the key dividers of working Americans. It is easy to understand why abortion has created such controversy. The moral question hinges on the point at which a person believes that human life begins, and unfortunately—in terms of building any kind of consensus—there are several points during the gestation of a new human being at which one can plausibly say this happens: the moment of conception; when the fetus is recognizable as human; the point at which the fetus can feel pain; the point at which it is viable outside the womb; the point at which it can recognize its mother’s voice; and so on, up to the moment when the fetus breaches the birth canal and enters the world. No absolute power from on high going to come down and tell us the correct answer. It is left to us to muddle through.
The most “progressive” position on abortion is that what happens with a woman and her pregnancy is nobody’s business but hers. The appropriate slogan is “my body, my choice.” The most conservative position is that a human life begins at the moment of conception and, it being both a sin and a crime to kill a fellow human being, any abortion is both a sin and a crime. The vast majority of Americans fall somewhere between these two extremes. As already noted, only about 20 percent of Americans tell pollsters that abortion should be legal at any time during a pregnancy and for any reason. An even smaller percentage—12 percent in a recent Gallup poll—believe abortion should be prohibited in all cases. About 60 percent of Americans opposed the overturning of Roe vs Wade, the Supreme Court – engineered compromise that kept the issue somewhat at bay for almost 50 years.
We Democrats should distance ourselves from both extremes on abortion. The conservative extreme is, to most of us, absurd: the preposterous equation of the rights of an insensate collection of cells the size of the head of a pin with those of a grown human adult can be dismissed out of hand.
But this does not lead us inexorably to endorse the “no restrictions” position on abortion. Most Americans feel that an 8-month-old fetus is not just part of the pregnant woman’s body: that is, the slogan, “my body, my choice,” conveniently ignores the fact that for most people, at least after a certain stage of pregnancy, there is a second human body involved (consider: when a woman in an advanced stage of pregnancy dies in a car crash, every effort is made to save the unborn fetus, while no effort is made to save things that clearly are just parts of the woman’s body: her pancreas, for example). Nor are Americans old-fashioned, in this regard, as compared to other modern democracies. In fact, the Roe abortion regime was virtually the most liberal on the planet, with most European nations, for example, prohibiting abortions after anywhere from 14 to 24 weeks. On abortion, we Democrats should militate for the return of Roe, a position that will draw together the super-majorities we are aiming for while in my view being, from either a moral-ethical or human rights standpoint, as defensible as any other position.
Transgender Rights
Another hot-button issue in the culture-war quagmire from which Democrats cannot seem to extricate themselves involves transgender citizens. For an issue that affects a very small proportion of the population, transgender rights generates an extraordinary amount of heat and sucks an extraordinary amount of oxygen from our public discourse. Before discussing the issue, however, let me first stipulate a bedrock premise: that the Democratic Party has, and must, stand for the right of all adult Americans, including those who differ from “norms” in any respect—be it gender identity, sexual orientation, body mass index or perceived “race”— to live their lives as they choose (within the bounds of our laws, of course) and to receive equal treatment in every walk of life.
There are several aspects of transgenderism which, as is the case with abortion, make consensus-building difficult. First, it is still very poorly understood: there is no scientific consensus as to why some very small percentage of human beings experience gender dysphoria (the sense that one’s physical body is the wrong sex). Among those who study the issue, several factors, ranging from genes and pre-natal womb conditions to brain morphology and social environment have been suggested, with no firm proof supporting any of these factors. This void of hard facts leaves room for copious amounts of propaganda on all sides, and for a field day of speculation applied to the fundamental controversy surrounding transgenderism: whether transgender individuals are “born that way,” or whether one can be socially influenced, or psychologically driven, to become transgender. This question is not merely philosophical, because attitudes toward transgenderism, and toward a government response, will inevitably differ depending upon whether one sees the phenomenon as being an innate, immutable quality or a socially or psychologically driven “choice.” Another aspect of transgenderism working against consensus is that the phenomenon seems to be rapidly mutating. Conventionally (that is, prior to this century), about one in one thousand people identified as transgender, the vast majority of these biological males who, from a very early age (two to four years) consistently expressed an attachment to female identity. In the last ten years or so this picture of transgenderism has been radically altered. First, a far greater number of Americans are now identifying as transgender (5 in 1,000 adults, and 14 in 1,000 teens) than before. Second, more biological females now express an attachment to male identity than males express attachment to a female identity (twice as many females). Finally, gender dysphoria is appearing much later in an individual’s development than before, especially in early to mid-adolescence: a team of British researchers found that referrals for gender dysphoria in the British National Health Service had grown from 250, mostly males, in 2012, to nearly 5,000 ten years later, most of these biologically female teens. This changing pattern of the transgender phenomenon strongly suggests at least some social-psychological factor at play in the current transgender explosion, though it does not rule out an innate, immutable condition in some percentage of cases. Given the sea-change undergone in gender stereotypes and roles since the 1960s cultural revolution, I would be surprised if some percentage of today’s youth were not experiencing significant confusion about gender, driven not necessarily by some innate, bodily cause but by difficulty adapting to the dizzying pace of cultural change, featuring, among other things, a welter of conflicting messages coming from parents, schools, the Internet and popular entertainment.
The standard “progressive” stance on transgenderism, and that adopted by the core of the Democratic Party (and by the Biden administration) is that “gender” (whether one is “male” or “female”) has no necessary relationship to “sex” (whether one has two X or one X and one Y chromosomes, with all of the normal primary and secondary sex characteristics that go along with that distinction). In this view, regardless of one’s chromosomal complement or physical body, you are whatever “gender” you feel you are. The opposite extreme—that adopted by the MAGA Right—is that there can never be any “gender” apart from one’s morphological “sex” (X and Y chromosomes and physical traits) and that gender dysphoria is a psychological quirk that should be treated with a species of gender “conversion therapy.” As with other topics I discuss here, I believe the Democratic Party must steer clear, if it is to build the super-majority needed to get to the promised land of a rich and inclusive social democracy in America, of both of these extremes.
The Democratic Party loses credence on culture war issues when it adopts policies (often taken lock, stock and barrel from interested “groups”) that offend common sense. On abortion, this could mean pushing the “my body, my choice” narrative, when most people consider it strikingly evident that there is also a second body involved in the equation, at least past a certain stage of pregnancy. On the “anti-racism” front, a view offensive to simple observation and common sense is that the failures and problems of any person racialized as anything other than “white” are always the fault, not of that person’s poor choices or lack of character or application, but of a systemic racism. If there’s one thing the average working American lives by, it’s common sense. And when Democrats try to sell the average American lines taken from graduate seminars that may use a lot of academic jargon, and find support in the academic and non-profit communities, but just don’t “add up,” these voters will go in search of politicians who speak in plain language and don’t seem to be gaslighting them. In the case of the poorly understood phenomenon of transgenderism, the standard “progressive” discourse is fraught with incoherence.
The very concept of transgenderism, first, raises a major contradiction with core feminist principles. We have been tutored by the feminism movement, for several decades now, to reject the traditional idea that men and women are characterized by different sets of psychological traits, the more enlightened view being that the fact of having a male or female body in no way affects the range of one’s mental or psychological attributes. But if this is the case—if the only difference between males and females is the morphology of their bodies—what can it possibly mean to say that a person with a female body “feels,” inwardly, more like a man, or that a person with a male body “feels,” inwardly, more like a woman? That is, if there is no innate difference between what it “feels” like, inwardly, to be a man and what it “feels” like, inwardly, to be a woman, what could such an assertion possibly be referring to? One way out of this dilemma—one that preserves the established feminist principle that there is no essential difference in the inner lives of men and women—would be to posit that a biological female with gender dysphoria feels affinity not with any essentialized male-type psyche, but with the socially determined ways males in their social environment express their humanity, and the kinds of things males do, rather than with the socially determined ways females in their environment express their humanity, and the kinds of things females do. If we take this view, however—chalking up gender dysphoria to a person’s desire to be able to play the socially determined roles, and to express themselves in the socially permitted ways, of the opposite gender—we run up against the core assertion of transgender advocates: that the transgender person experiences some innate, likely biologically determined same-ness with people of the opposite sex. This tack, further, calls into question the received idea among both transgender advocates and many healthcare providers, that the solution to gender dysphoria is to alter the patient’s body in ways that make the body conform more to the transgender person’s desired gender identity. For if the real problem is that our society is forcing people to choose between narrow conceptions, based upon one’s biological sex, of how a person can express themselves and the roles they’re allowed to play, a far simpler solution—and one with less trauma to the transgender person’s body (and less confusion all around)—would seem to be to convince the patient that in modern America they are allowed to express their humanity in any way they choose, regardless of whether they have a male or female body.
Make no mistake, I don’t mean to question whether gender dysphoria is a real phenomenon. Thousands of mental health professionals and parents can attest to its very concrete expression, and the very disruptive effects it can have. Nor do I intend to deny that there is a physical basis for the phenomenon, although scientists have yet to convincingly pinpoint any specific factors (we simply do not know what causes transgenderism). I am simply establishing the considerable areas of conceptual ambiguity with which the issue is implicated, making it difficult for the average American, from a simple, common-sense point of view, to accept the most extreme claims of transgender advocates (and their champions in the Democratic Party).
The “progressive” view on transgenderism stipulates that the mere assertion by an individual that they are the gender other than that of their physical body must be accepted without question. And when we adopt this policy as a matter of law, we are demanding that both institutions and individuals accept this viewpoint, or at least speak and behave as if they do, upon pain of legal sanction. However, there is no logical reason, that I can see, why we all must consider Caitlyn Jenner to be a “woman.” In common with “men,” Jenner has one X and one Y chromosome, an Adam’s apple, long, shanky arms and legs, a square jaw line and a husky voice. Unlike “women,” Jenner has no ovaries, no mammary glands, and has never menstruated. Though Jenner has woman-like breasts and no facial hair, this is all due to a constant infusion of synthetic hormones (if these substances ever became unavailable, Jenner’s breasts would disappear and beard reappear, which raises the question: can something as essential to one’s identity as gender be dependent upon the availability in one’s society of artificial hormone treatments?). I am not saying that any of this means that Jenner is not a “woman,” a question that, in reality, is little more than a matter of semantics. I am, however, saying that whether or not one considers Jenner a “woman” would appear to be a question about which reasonable people could differ, there being many aspects of Jenner, in spite of the feminine hair, clothes, jewelry and breasts, that very clearly signal “maleness” (“reasonable,” I realize, being one thing in short supply in our culture-war arguments). The “progressive” view on transgenderism—that one’s gender is whichever one feels it to be in one’s mind—ignores our animal nature: that is, the cold, hard facts of our physical bodies—something many of us are not willing or able to do. One can respect Jenner’s expressed desire to present as a woman, without necessarily buying into the complete narrative that Jenner has become a “woman.” If Democrats insist that the average American leave their common sense judgments at the door when entering the Party, many will continue to look for other doors to walk through.
Aside from the conceptual difficulties just described, there are serious practical factors working against convincing the vast middle of America to accept the most extreme claims of transgender advocates. In 2010 the Obama administration ordered that the protections of Title IX, the federal statute prohibiting sex-based discrimination in education settings, apply to transgender students. Under this interpretation, schools must recognize a student’s self-described gender identity, treating that student identically to any other student of that gender. In practical effect, this meant not only that transgender “girls,” whether surgically transitioned or not, should be allowed to use “girls” bathrooms, but also showers in girls locker rooms. That it did not occur to decision-makers in the Obama administration (and President Obama himself) that the average American parent would not be thrilled about young people with penises taking naked showers with their adolescent daughters demonstrates just how out of touch Democrats can be with the nation they wish to lead (the Biden administration unfortunately adopted the same stance). The issue of biological males participating in female sports is an only slightly less egregious form of tone-deafness by Democrat leaders and influencers. The very reason for separately gendered sporting contests is so that female athletes, just as talented and dedicated as their male counterparts, can participate in contests they have a chance of winning. That Democratic politicians would throw all cisgender female athletes under the bus to satisfy the demands of a tiny but vocal minority demonstrates how beholden Democrats have become to the “groups.”
A sensible Democratic position on transgenderism would feature respect for all Americans: both those who identify as transgender and those whose conceptions of what makes one a “man” or a “woman” differ from that of transgender advocates and “progressive” standard bearers. We definitely should not be granting people with penises the right to use female locker rooms, and we should not render female sporting events unfair to the entirety of biological females to satisfy the ideological demands of a tiny minority of the population. We can still be compassionate toward those experiencing gender dysphoria, support its treatment in accordance with the latest scientific consensus, and demand that all individuals, including those outside norms, be treated equally. But we cannot be so solicitous of the demands of a tiny minority—demands shot through with conceptual conundrums, at that—that we overlook the needs and desires of the majority. This would be an egregious misallocation of the political capital that must be husbanded to support the expansive social democracy we seek. (As one commenter recently wrote in reply to a New York Times piece on transgender issues: “this is not the hill we should die on!”)
Once we dismiss “progressive” demands for adherence to an ideological position that is not supported by facts or common sense (that a person magically becomes the opposite gender simply by claiming it to be so) we can look for practical solutions to helping transgender people exist in a society that must, perforce, organize itself to meet the needs of the cisgender majority. For example, instead of entrenched battles about bath and locker rooms, why not just put separate transgender bathrooms and shower areas in our schools? I understand that this will hurt the feelings of many transgender students, for their desire is that they be considered by one and all to be the gender they wish to be, and not some third option: they don’t want, that is, to be different. But the fact is, they actually are different than the vast majority of people, who are either simply male or female, both in body and mind. We make handicapped ramps for the non-ambulatory, but we don’t make everyone use them to prevent the wheelchair-bound person from feeling “different.” This doesn’t mean they are any less; but yes, they are different, and no amount of wishing will make it not so. As my friend Bob likes to say, the problem with us Democrats is that we don’t know how to say “no” (and are aghast at allowing anyone’s feelings to be hurt, especially if their hurt feelings are wrapped in claims of discrimination). In regard to medical treatments for minors, we should adopt a position that should please even “family-friendly” conservatives: that medical decisions regarding minors should be in the hands of their parents. As to adults, we should take a position that less-government conservatives—and even died-in-the-wool libertarians—should not object to: that their medical care is their own business and no one else’s. We Democrats must get it into our heads that we will not gain majority support by focusing on the demands of niche minorities. Nor is there any moral imperative to do so. Living in society requires give and take by all. The majority must make room for minority viewpoints, and non-normative expressions of one’s humanity, with compassion and respect. But minority factions must recognize that the vast majority of their fellow citizens also deserve a society that makes sense to them, and suits their needs and desires.
“Capitalism”: Sanders, AOC & “Socialism” Are Bad Medicine for Democrats
One strain prevalent in certain Democratic quarters—the “Squad,” the ”Progressive Caucus,” the developing Sanders-AOC dyad—is a stated dislike of “capitalism,” including a thinly disguised disdain (if not open contempt) for business entities; praise of “socialism”; self-identification as “socialists” and; in some cases, membership in “socialist” organizations like the Democratic Socialists of America. “Socialism,” by its standard definition, indicates a political-economic system in which the State owns and controls the “means of production,” as in Venezuela, Cuba and the former USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). While typically promoting what are actually “social democratic” policies (universal healthcare, a fulsome welfare state) such as characterize the Scandinavian and several other European nations, progressives who promote “socialism” indicate, through their continual critiques of “capitalism,” their self-labeling as “socialists,” and their involvement with socialist groups like the Democratic Socialists of America, that they do not believe in the chiefly private-enterprise economies that sustain not only the United States but all of the world’s great social democracies: Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, France, Spain, etc. This clique’s attachment to “socialism” is terribly misguided. Aside from the fact that the promotion of socialism runs absolutely contrary to the traditions of the United States (and long-established habits of thought and action of its people), no country practicing socialism has ever been able to deliver anything other than scarcity and regimentation to its citizenry. The vast majority of Americans, and especially Americans of a traditionalist mindset, want nothing to do with a government-owned and -run economy. If the Democratic Party wants any chance of really leading this nation, and any great number of its states, it must do everything possible to distance itself from political actors lost in nostalgia for Che Guevera and Fidel Castro. “Businesses,” operating according to a system we call “capitalism” (where private parties can bring together capital—machinery, property, and the human capital of labor—to create enterprises that satisfy the needs and wants of their fellow citizens) is what makes America function, from a material point of view. We Democrats should celebrate and commend fellow citizens who take the initiative to found and manage entities that provide for our material needs as no citizenry’s material needs have ever been cared for in the history of humanity. The “socialist” brand is poison, and it—along with its adherents and promoters—is one of the things we Democrats are going to need to learn to say “no” to, if we wish to gain super majorities sufficient to enable us to really govern.
Women’s Rights: Affordable Childcare & The Fallacy of “Equal Pay for Equal Work”
The last issue I will address which contributes to America’s cultural divides—those values conflicts that are submarining the possibility of developing social democratic super-majorities—can be broadly subsumed under the heading “women’s rights.” There is an important strain on the American Left that views men and women as antagonists in what is an almost zero-sum game for power and authority. A substantial segment of this coterie sees all of human history as a story of an oppressed womanhood fighting for liberation from the “patriarchy,” a struggle that continues today. At its most extreme form, this mindset sees men as the enemy, a toxic and morally inferior portion of the human race, evidenced by popular book titles like Maureen Dowd’s Are Men Necessary?. The Handmaid’s Tale, an icon for young women progressives, posits a future where women are subjected to institutionalized rape to insure reproduction of the species: one can’t escape the sensation that the “progressive” women who frequently invoke the book (or movie) really believe the average male morally low enough to be capable of creating and supporting such a system.
There is no disputing that, prior to the current generations of living Americans, men enjoyed privileges, power and authority that were denied to women. It also cannot be disputed that, in 2025, there are no remaining institutional barriers to women’s participation in every facet of American life. In fact, by many reckonings, young women are today doing much better than young men: they constitute the majority of college enrollees as well as college graduates, are the majority of law school students, and equal men in medical school enrollments.
Certainly there are some on the far right, typically Christian fundamentalists, who propound a return to patriarchy: they want women in the home raising children, where man is the sole breadwinner and master of his private domain. This is, however, a vanishingly small percentage of Americans, even among those who vote Republican. The majority of women, including those in Republican households, work outside the home: their earnings are both sorely needed and greatly appreciated by their male spouses. I would posit that most Americans, men or women, do not see daily life as a pitched war between the sexes for social, political and economic power and authority. Self-styled “progressive” advocates who seek to create and continually feed an antagonistic dynamic about men and women are deeply out of touch with this vast middle America who see the opposite sex as a source of delight, fun and—once in a stable, settled relationship—of strength, support, and partnership in building the fundamental, and most important, of all human institutions: the family.
Probably the most important rallying cry for women progressives who wish to advance the “men against women” agenda is “Equal Pay for Equal Work.” This slogan suggests that, throughout American society, women working the same jobs as men are being paid less than their male colleagues. The only problem with this slogan is that it is almost entirely false, based on a willful misinterpretation of statistics. The figure has changed over the last several years, but the progressive critique typically takes the form of, “Women make 70 (or 75, 80, or 82) cents to the dollar for every dollar a man makes.” These numbers are derived from Census Bureau data that show that, in the aggregate, all women together make 70/75/80/82 (the exact percentage depends upon which year is looked at) percent of what all men make. The reason for this disparity, as shown by the research of Harvard scholar and 2023 Nobel laureate in economics, Claudia Goldin, is threefold: (1) women tend work part-time to a greater degree than men, (2) women tend to choose occupations that are less well remunerated than those chosen by men, and (3) women tend to leave the workforce more often than men to raise children, this interruption in their career path leading to lower earnings. No, there are not hordes of employers across the country who hire a male and female account executive at the same time, doing the same job, and pay the man $80,000 per year and the woman $60,000.
Advocates pushing the “Equal Pay for Equal Work” must know that they are, in essence, lying, but this does not stop them. And this points to another problem the American Left faces in trying to expand its base and build that social democratic super-majority we are aiming at. People don’t like being lied to and, other than political junkies (and only some of these) they don’t want propaganda. Although most Americans may lack the necessary intellectual tools to always ferret out the truth in a society awash in misinformation of all kinds (political, commercial, social), at heart they, like all human beings throughout history, want to be told the truth. Like the slogan, “Our Bodies, Our Choice,” which conveniently ignores the existence of a second “body” in the equation, the slogan “Equal Pay for Equal Work” is a falsehood. A responsible Left, wishing to engage American voters from a place of trust and concern, should not be trafficking in lies.
Claudia Goldin, especially in her most recent book, Career and Family: Women’s Century-Long Journey Toward Equity, highlights some of the major reasons behind women’s lower aggregate earnings: workplaces that are not friendly to the child-rearing enterprise, a lack of broadly affordable childcare, and an unequal sharing of childcare responsibilities between parents. Goldin advocates workplaces that don’t reward workaholism, more affordable childcare, and a more equitable sharing of childcare responsibilities in the home. Of these three proffered solutions, I cannot readily see how government policy can tell employers not to reward those willing to work long hours, travel upon request, and otherwise give their all for their firm. These kinds of employees will continue to be more valuable to employers than those who must leave the office every day at 5:00 and refuse to travel, and it would probably not be in the interest of wider American society to discourage those who are willing to go “above and beyond.” Nor can I conceive, even for a moment, the State going into couples’ homes to arbitrate who must do the laundry, warm the baby bottle, or take out the trash: this is a dystopia only slightly less alarming than that envisioned in The Handmaid’s Tale. The one thing government can certainly do, and should do, is make sure that two-parent families at every economic level have safe, professional and affordable childcare services.
The Democratic Party should distance itself from, and indeed suppress, all those intent upon chanting the false slogan, “Equal Pay for Equal Work,” and go all in for affordable, world-class childcare for working Americans.
Conclusion
This paper set out to answer the question: Can the Democratic Party offer a vision that will both inspire and unify a majority of Americans sufficient to create the kinds of super-majorities required to effectuate real change in American politics? I have suggested that broad majorities exist for the broadening of social democratic programs that benefit most working Americans, but that the Democratic Party, in adopting culture-war positions important only to niche actors, has alienated much of that natural base of support. I have proposed that the Party should push such social democratic policies as affordable housing and healthcare; guaranteed jobs or training at living wages; support for education and training for our children and youth; protection of the environment and transition to sustainable, climate-neutral energy production; zero-tolerance for violent crime; affordable childcare; and an industrial policy that will keep the United States on the cutting edge of the technologies that will determine our future.
In regard to the culture-war issues that currently divide working Americans, depriving Democrats of the opportunity to build a super-majority for better social democracy in the U.S., I have proposed the following:
On the issue of race, I argue, first, that we Democrats should advance a reparations plan covering Americans racialized as “black” who were alive before 1968; and second, that we cease racializing American citizens (except insofar as is necessary to complete the proposed reparations plan), but instead formulate social democratic programs that provide government support to all who require it, without distinctions based upon superficial physical characteristics, or where our ancestors lived 500 years ago.
On immigration, we should advocate for a path to legality and eventual citizenship for anyone who has been in the country for at least four years, has not committed a crime beyond traffic offenses, and is not currently reliant upon the social welfare system. Meanwhile, Democrats, as a party committed to the rule of law, do not have a good case that the federal executive cannot, or should not, enforce existing law.
On abortion, the Party should advocate for a return to Roe v. Wade; the Party should distance itself from, and suppress, anyone advocating a “no restrictions” stance, deeply unpopular with the vast majority of voters; the Party should eschew the dishonest slogan, “Our bodies, our choice.”
The issue of whether a transgender person, whether or not surgically transitioned, has actually become the other gender is a philosophical question about which reasonable people can differ. The Party’s position on transgender issues should be four-fold: (1) Adults can do whatever they wish with their names, their clothes, their bodies and their medical treatments; (2) Medical decisions concerning minor children should be in the hands of their parents; (3) Local school boards and sporting bodies should make decisions about the participation of trans individuals in women’s sports; (4) Government should not take sides on the metaphysical issue of whether a person can “become” a gender other than the one they were born as: as a practical matter, this means that Democrats should not advocate for the enforced declaration of pronouns; the use of gender-specific spaces by those not of the requisite biological sex; or the teaching of transgender ideology in public schools.
The Democratic Party should distance itself from, and suppress individuals, including those claiming Democratic Party affiliation, who self-identify as “socialists,” belong to socialist organizations like the “Democratic Socialists of America,” or argue that “capitalism” is a non-desirable form of social-economic organization.
Democrats should distance themselves from the slogan “Equal Pay for Equal Work,” since, as the research of Nobel laureate Claudia Goldin has shown, it is an instance of dishonest propaganda; the Party should not participate in, and should distance itself from, any narrative that demeans men or places men and women in antagonism toward one another; to support women in the workforce, the Party should focus on making sure every working parent has access to quality, affordable childcare.
