The Democratic Party essentially represents the negation of the agenda of the Reactionary faction of the Republican Party. It consists of groups that have been denied power within the traditional authority structure, and which have demanded assistance from the state for the purpose of attaining equality of treatment. These groups, and their respective oppositions, include:
1. People of color, vs. whites;
2. Feminist women, vs. men;
3. Gays, vs. straight people;
4. Labor, vs. capital;
5. Poor, vs. rich; and
6. Secularists, vs. organized religion.
Most of the time, the agendas of these groups do not conflict, so the party (at least in recent years) has been more united and cohesive than the Republicans, whose divisions in Congress are all too visible on a daily basis. There is no doubt, however, that white working men are on the wrong side of several of these conflicts, which, along with the party’s failure to provide a convincing response to economic shifts caused by technological change and globalization, has resulted in large scale defections to the Republicans among white men.
There is a whiff of triumphalism about the Democratic Party’s view of the demographic changes that appear to provide it with a working majority during presidential election years. Leaving aside the fact that the off-presidential electorate routinely chooses a Congress dominated by Republicans, which makes pursuing an ambitious legislative agenda impossible, one has to wonder what will happen if and when the groups listed above start to lose their sense of grievance. I don’t know if or when that will ever occur, but it could.
One interesting paradox regarding the Democrats is that they routinely provide vigorous support for entitlements for the elderly, but the elderly are among the most reliable cohorts of Republican voters. How long can that contradiction persist, and in what way will it ultimately be resolved? That is a subject for another day.