Can Democrats Stand Up for Progressive Values without Being Pilloried as the Brahmin Left?

“The Democrats have become and remain today a ‘Brahmin Left’ party. ‘Brahmin Left’ is a term coined by economist Thomas Piketty and colleagues to characterize Western left parties increasingly bereft of working-class voters and increasingly dominated by highly educated voters and elites, including of course our own Democratic Party. The Brahmin Left character of the party has evolved over many decades but spiked in the 21st century” (Ruy Teixeira: The Democrats’ Brahmin Left Problem).

The term “Brahmin Left” seems to be resonating among some journalists and political analysts as a depiction of what ails the Democratic Party. For example, in a popular podcast, David Leonhardt, a NY Times Opinion editorial director, referred to the Brahmin Left as an explanation of why the Democratic party is losing the working class vote.

This Brahmin Left branding is a clever put-down, invoking the caste system of ancient India, in which Brahmins stood at the top of a rigid social hierarchy and were responsible for maintaining sacred knowledge. The term also reminded me of my years spent in New England, not far from Boston, where the “Boston Brahmins” were known as upper-crust families who could trace their ancestry to the early English colonists, often had historic ties to Harvard University, and were socially influential. To brand the modern Democratic Party as the Brahmin Left is a way of saying that it is a party completely out of touch with everyday Americans. This labeling casts Democrats as a party of elites who are insulated from the hard realities of working class folks and who have adopted a lofty progressivism at odds with the lived experience of regular people.

I’m troubled by the dismissal of the Democratic Party, a party I’ve been a registered member of for over fifty years, as the Brahmin Left. I know I shouldn’t take this branding personally, but I suppose I do. I fall into the demographic group that the Brahmin Lleft encompasses, as does my wife and our friends. And we live in a liberal city, Portland, Oregon. But nobody I know fits the smug and self-righteous image of a Brahmin. 

While I can readily admit that we Democrats have made mistakes, in terms of both policy and messaging–mistakes that we should own and learn from–I’m concerned that we might try so hard to broaden our base that we risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

In this essay, I describe what I see as two risks for Democrats in buying into the Brahmin Left depiction and moving hard to the center as a defensive reaction to it.  

Risk 1: A Soulless Centrism

Some Democrats have recently taken explicitly centrist stands on social issues, like issues concerning immigrants, historically subordinated racial and ethnic groups, and members of the LGBTQ community. The risk of such centrist views is that they fail to represent the passionate empathy for struggling individuals and groups that has been the hallmark of the Democratic Party. 

For example, in an interview with David Leonhardt, the same NY Times journalist I mentioned previously, Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, a red state in the last election, offered a position on immigration that probably matched well with the majority of her constituents.

“Slotkin: I’m a national security person by training. I spent my entire career trying to prevent threats to the homeland. And if you’re here illegally, you shouldn’t be… if you’re here illegally, you have committed a crime and you should go home.”

Slotkin’s position may be popular, but is this what we want? Where’s the heart in this position? In my last essay, I wrote about my friend, a Dreamer who came to this country without legal papers as a three-year-old with her parents who were fleeing from dire life circumstances. She has worked and studied hard in America, earned both an undergraduate and graduate degree, and serves the community admirably in her professional role. She is undocumented, as are her parents, who also contribute positively to our community. Trump and his ICE agents would like to deport people like my friend and her family, or cause them enough angst that they self-deport. Standing against my friend may be in line with majority views, but is this the kind of centrist politics we should stand for?

Or consider the case of Carol Hui, an undocumented immigrant from Hong Kong who is a beloved mom, community member, and server in a local waffle and pancake house in a Missouri town deep in Trump country. Residents of the town were aghast when the Trump regime carted Carol away and detained and threatened to deport her. Townspeople raised $20,000 in short order to support Carol and rallied for her freedom. On June 4, she was released under a federal immigration program that offers a “temporary safe haven” to immigrants from Hong Kong. 

Carol’s case suggests that even the majority of Trump supporters balk when immigration policy is heartless. It suggests further that the Democratic Party, in order to broaden its base, need not abandon its historic commitment to protecting the rights and dignity of immigrants. This commitment has nothing to do with being a Brahmin. It has to do with being a caring human. It also is an affirmation of the singular role the United States has historically played as a beacon of freedom and a land of opportunity for those seeking refuge from persecution and unlivable conditions. 

Democrats can acknowledge that we might have done better during the first few years of Biden’s Presidency to set reasonable limits on immigration. And perhaps we didn’t work vigorously enough to expand resources and personnel for processing newcomers and helping those who meet established criteria settle meaningfully in appropriate settings in our country. But acknowledging past problems should not dampen our resolve to fight for the respectful treatment of our immigrant neighbors and community members.

Risk 2: Pandering

Some Democratic politicians may be so intent on winning over Trump voters that they end up pandering, even if unintentionally, to hard-core bigots. An unfortunate example of this comes from the first few episodes of Gavin Newsom’s new podcast. According to Michelle Goldberg, a columnist whom I regularly read, Gavin, the nationally known Democratic governor of California, wanted to show in his new media venture that he could engage in constructive dialogue with voices on the right. But he invited right-wing media stars like Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon to his show and seemed to pander to their base impulses. As Goldberg observed: 

“Trying to leverage Kirk’s and Bannon’s notoriety to reach new audiences could have been an interesting experiment.

Instead, it’s a protracted exercise in self-harm for both Newsom and any liberal who decides to listen to him. That’s because the governor frequently seems less interested in arguing than in finding common ground, assuming the good faith of people who have next to none. He leaves wild right-wing claims unchallenged and repeatedly concedes Republican premises. When Bannon described rebuilding his movement after what he claimed was the stolen 2020 election, Newsom’s response was, ‘Well, I appreciate the notion of agency.’

What could have been a show of intellectual confidence on Newsom’s part has turned out to be a demeaning display of submission.”

Goldberg made the important point that Democrats can show respect for different views on controversial issues, such as whether trans women who have gone through male puberty should be allowed to play on women’s sports teams, without accommodating right-wing ignorance and raw prejudice. In Goldberg’s words:

“It was especially ill advised for Newsom to roll out his pivot on trans women in sports in a conversation with Kirk, a man who once described trans people as ‘disgusting, mentally ill, neurotic, predatory freaks.’ As a matter of both political expediency and simple honesty, Democrats should be able to acknowledge that it’s unfair to expect elite female athletes to compete against trans women who’ve gone through male puberty. But at a time when the Trump administration has singled trans people out for persecution, Democrats need to couple their recognition of physical difference with a broader defense of trans rights.

Instead, Newsom emphasized how much he and Kirk agreed about. ‘The issue of fairness is completely legit,’ he said. ‘So I completely align with you. And we’ve got to own that.’

If the governor was aware of the things Kirk has said about trans people, he should have called him on it. If he wasn’t, perhaps it’s because it takes work to prepare to engage a demagogue and Newsom already has a full-time job.”

While I’m not aware of other similarly explicit and dramatic examples of liberal Democrats going overboard to find a connection with right-wing zealots, I regularly read and hear liberals talk about the need to get out of our echo chambers and listen more openly to the opinions of everyday Americans. Listening respectfully and compassionately to working-class Americans is, of course, a good and wise practice. But in doing so, we can insist on standards of truth, civility, and humaneness and on the rights of diverse individuals to define for themselves what it means to lead their best lives.

The term “Brahmin Left” has a definite ring to it. It’s a catchy label. But while we Democrats may consist disproportionately of college-aged and higher-than-average income earners, I don’t think it’s fair to reduce us to this stereotype. When we stand up for equality, freedom, mutual caring and respect for differences, we are standing up for universal values and broadly human sentiments. While we should admit our mistakes, we should not apologize for our commitments or give up the fight for a truly just society.