I agree with the conclusion that the Middle America liberal is what the Democrats need, although I tend to think about the different factions of liberals and leftists somewhat differently. In general, I like to think about the economic geography of where a person comes from. The more wealthy a place is, in general, the more socially liberal it is, and we know that wealth tends to concentrate in big metro areas. The differences between West Coast and East Coast might apply to voters more generally than to the party elite. In my personal experience, there are a lot of social connections between west coast and east coast city people; people move back and forth across the country frequently; and you are likely to encounter the same kind of liberal elite in Boston, New York and San Francisco. But in general I think you could say that the West coast is a wealthier place than the East (look at property values, the concentration of tech companies, etc.), and that might explain why west coast liberals tend to be more socially liberal than your typical east coaster. If you live in a wealthy community and are surrounded by wealth, you are less likely to feel threatened by crime, immigration, and societal change generally, because it doesn't affect you as much. Wealth concentrates in big growing cities, and in smaller locales with strong economic and social connections to big cities (e.g. college towns and places where big city liberals like to vacation and retire). The West has had faster growth than Eastern legacy cities in recent decades, so traditionally liberal areas of the East have more legacy Democrats who don't come from very wealthy communities, but the Dem "machine" is still powerful in these areas.
On the other hand, the definition of the "left" traditionally is more about combatting the aristocratic concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, whether that be 18th century monarchs or industrial robber barons. Social liberals, especially wealthy ones, are often not very concerned with economic fairness, even if they give it lip service. There is a big difference between a leftist and a liberal on economics. Economic liberals are generally pro-capitalist, pro-Big Business, which makes sense when you see where the wealth in big cities comes from. Meanwhile, economic progressivism has a long rural populist tradition in this country. Nebraska and the rural heartland, where Tim Walz hails from, was once a hotbed of economic progressive populist radicals and basically gave us the early 20th century Progressive movement. The Democratic Party in Minnesota is still called the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, reflecting this tradition. (By the way, Elizabeth Warren also comes from the Plains and has a certain populist appeal.) Populist progressivism is stronger in places like rural Vermont than it is in Boston. Left populism is what Tim Walz brings to the table, and Harris made a very smart move with this pick.
I agree with the conclusion that the Middle America liberal is what the Democrats need, although I tend to think about the different factions of liberals and leftists somewhat differently. In general, I like to think about the economic geography of where a person comes from. The more wealthy a place is, in general, the more socially liberal it is, and we know that wealth tends to concentrate in big metro areas. The differences between West Coast and East Coast might apply to voters more generally than to the party elite. In my personal experience, there are a lot of social connections between west coast and east coast city people; people move back and forth across the country frequently; and you are likely to encounter the same kind of liberal elite in Boston, New York and San Francisco. But in general I think you could say that the West coast is a wealthier place than the East (look at property values, the concentration of tech companies, etc.), and that might explain why west coast liberals tend to be more socially liberal than your typical east coaster. If you live in a wealthy community and are surrounded by wealth, you are less likely to feel threatened by crime, immigration, and societal change generally, because it doesn't affect you as much. Wealth concentrates in big growing cities, and in smaller locales with strong economic and social connections to big cities (e.g. college towns and places where big city liberals like to vacation and retire). The West has had faster growth than Eastern legacy cities in recent decades, so traditionally liberal areas of the East have more legacy Democrats who don't come from very wealthy communities, but the Dem "machine" is still powerful in these areas.
On the other hand, the definition of the "left" traditionally is more about combatting the aristocratic concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, whether that be 18th century monarchs or industrial robber barons. Social liberals, especially wealthy ones, are often not very concerned with economic fairness, even if they give it lip service. There is a big difference between a leftist and a liberal on economics. Economic liberals are generally pro-capitalist, pro-Big Business, which makes sense when you see where the wealth in big cities comes from. Meanwhile, economic progressivism has a long rural populist tradition in this country. Nebraska and the rural heartland, where Tim Walz hails from, was once a hotbed of economic progressive populist radicals and basically gave us the early 20th century Progressive movement. The Democratic Party in Minnesota is still called the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, reflecting this tradition. (By the way, Elizabeth Warren also comes from the Plains and has a certain populist appeal.) Populist progressivism is stronger in places like rural Vermont than it is in Boston. Left populism is what Tim Walz brings to the table, and Harris made a very smart move with this pick.
Ed, love this framework! You’re helping me understand why I like the guy so much
Great to hear!