Is Biden the Leonid Brezhnev of the Democratic party?
The Democratic party stands on a precipice and looks ready to jump in.
Make someone’s day: Gift a subscription to your friends and family!
Nothing symbolizes the last decade of the Soviet Union as well as Leonid Brezhnev. Leonid Brezhnev served as leader of the Soviet Union from 1964-1982. Brezhnev replaced the volatile Nikita Khrushchev, who pushed de-Stalinization much faster than Communist party leaders were comfortable with.
Leonid Brezhnev presided over the Soviet Union during the height of its power and its most stable period. Brezhnev was as “normal” as Soviet leadership got.
Unfortunately, the internal contradictions inherent within the Soviet system gradually undermined Brezhnev’s Golden Era. During the 1970s and the early 1980s, the Soviet Union was slowly grounding to a halt. Its economy had been stagnant since the 1960s, and only oil and gas exports to the West gave it enough foreign cash to keep things going. Without Western oil and gas expertise, these highly profitable exports would not have been possible.
From 1973 until his death in 1982, Brezhnev’s health deteriorated from a large number of ailments. In 1975 he suffered the first of his many heart attacks and strokes. His health issues were so bad, that it is a minor miracle that he stayed alive. And, of course, the regime did their best to cover up Brezhnev’s health issues until the very end. Sound familiar?
The man literally remained in office after he died.
Read that line again.
To the best of my knowledge, Brezhnev is the only important world leader to die in office and make a comeback (and you thought Richard Nixon and Donald Trump made great political comebacks).
The man went in for surgery and was declared clinically dead before frantic doctors were able to revive him!
No, I cannot find any confirmation of this event, but it was a story widely believed in the 1980s. It may be hyperbole rather than fact, but either way, the story is hugely symbolic of the state of the Soviet regime.
When the Geriatric ward ran a Super Power
After Brezhnev finally died for good in 1982 after almost 20 years in power, he was succeeded by KGB Chief Yuri Andropov, who died only a little over one year later. Andropov was succeeded by Konstantin Chernenko, who also died in office after one year.
The Old Soviet Guard was dropping off like flies.
Chernenko was succeeded by Mikhail Gorbachev, whose attempts to reform the Soviet political and economic system led to its final collapse. Though Gorbachev is revered in the West, he is probably the most hated man in Russia.
While virtually no one predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, with the benefit of hindsight, it all seems inevitable. Why the Soviet Union lasted so long is an interesting question that I tackled in an earlier article. And both the physical body and the media persona of Leonid Brezhnev perfectly symbolize the decline of a superpower.
So what does this all have to with Joe Biden?
See also my other articles and podcasts on Ideology:
Why Ideologies Threaten Progress (Part 1 of 3-part podcast series)
Why ideologies fail (podcast)
Descent into a man-made Hell: Understanding modern Totalitarianism
You might also be interested in reading my “From Poverty to Progress” book series:
The passing of an era?
No, I am not here to make fun of Joe Biden’s age.
If he did not voluntarily choose to run for President in 2019 and then again in 2024, then I would feel sorry for him. We all die sometimes, and most of us suffer serious cognitive decline before that happens.
I am here to ask the question: Does Joe Biden symbolize the end of the competitiveness of the Democratic party on the national level? And this question is relevant to far more nations than just the United States. All across the Western world, the Center-Left is in decline.
Virtually every democratic nation in Europe has seen a long, slow decline in the support for Social Democratic parties. For a while, Green parties looked like they might take their place as the dominant party on the Left, but they have seen a significant decline over the last few years. Parties on the Right have consistently grown in election after election throughout Europe and look likely to do so in the coming years.
For a long time, the Anglo world (USA, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) seemed immune to the trend. But now even in those nations, the Left is beginning to fade. The Labour party in New Zealand just got run out of office, and Trudeau’s Liberal party in Canada has sharply declining opinion polls. The Canadian Conservative party seems very likely to take power within months.
The Labour party in Australia is going through a similar, though much slower, decline. It might well lose power in the 2025 election. Only the UK Labour party has experience an upward trend, and anyone betting on the competence of that party is unlikely to come out ahead. Public support for the Labour party collapsed almost as soon as it took power.
It would not surprise me at all if all seven of the G7 nations have conservative governments in the near future.
I really do not think that Joe Biden winning the 2024 Presidential election would have changed anything. Nor would a victory by his sudden replacement, Kamala Harris. In fact, it would likely make the decline of the Democratic party on the federal level even more precipitous.
What next?
After when Joe Biden inevitably retires, who exactly is going to take over the leadership of the party?
In a previous article, I made the claim that Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom are likely the model for future Democratic candidates, and it is not likely that they can win a trifecta needed to implement progressive legislation on the federal level. Yes, Democrats can win big victories in 12-15 Blue States and perhaps in a few Purple States, but not in the Red States and at the federal level. Yes, Democrats can win the House in mid-term elections and block Republican legislation on the federal level.
I believe that Joe Biden is the last Democrat who can legitimately present an image of being a moderate. I will leave it up to you to decide whether Biden’s image matched the reality. Every other potential leader of the Democratic party on the federal level is further to the Left than Biden’s image. This image will not hurt the Democrats in Blue states, but it will seriously hurt them in the 35 other states.
The Democratic preoccupation with racial, gender, and sexual identity is sabotaging the future leadership of the party. Every potential leader must either check off a box of being either:
a racial minority,
a woman, and
have some sort of non-heterosexual gender identity.
All the exceptions must hew the party ideological line or risk ending their careers. This makes the Democratic bench for national politics extremely thin. And since the Left controls the primaries, fund-raising, and activists, no one else has a chance to step forward.
I have no doubt that Democrats will easily win Governorships, Senate seats, House seats, and state legislatures in 12-15 Blue states. I don’t doubt that they will also easily win House seats in majority-minority districts. They will likely also snag a few Governorships and Senate seats in one of a dozen Purple states.
But win the Presidency? No.
Win a Senate majority? No.
Win a House majority for more than two years? No.
I think the best outcome for the Democratic party on the national level is to win enough seats in Congress to keep the Republicans from radically overhauling federal government policies. I think three straight Presidential elections, like in 1980, 1984, and 1988 is a very real possibility. And Republican governing majorities in the US Senate, US House, and federal courts is likely for most of this period.
The last time that this happened to Democrats (in the 1980s), they were so desperate to win, that they rallied around a self-proclaimed moderate in the name of Bill Clinton. And Bill Clinton spent just as much time fighting with Democrats in Congress as Republicans in Congress.
Traditionally throughout American history when a major political party was out of office for a long period, that party decided to put victory over their ideological principles. The party would usually nominate a moderate, a war hero, or someone who could appeal to a broader base.
Back in 1992, there was still a critical mass of moderate and even conservative Democratic voters to enable Bill Clinton to win the Democratic nomination. There was also a critical mass of moderate Democrats and Republicans in the House and particularly the Senate that were willing to work with President Clinton.
Now those types of politicians within the two major parties are long gone.
My guess, and I admit it is only an educated guess, I do not think that Democratic primary voters or campaign funders will tolerate the nomination of a moderate. Perhaps a few will, but you need a critical mass of primary voters to give a moderate candidate a chance to win. I do not doubt that this will happen in Purple states and even on occasion in Red states.
But consistently on the federal level?
No, I really do not think so.
Pathways to leadership within the Democratic party
To be a successful politician as a Democrat, one must:
Come up through the ranks in one of 12-15 Blue states that have very little general election competition. This makes the Democratic primary with a very low turnout of ideologically motivated voters “the real election” in those geographies.
This means that career advancement with the Democratic party is not determined by the ability to appeal to swing voters in general elections. Career advancement within the Democratic party is determined by the ability to appeal to a much smaller and unrepresentative group:
A very small pool of Democratic primary voters
Democratic-leaning financial donors
Democratic-leaning interest groups
Leftist activists, many of whom are far to the Left of typical Democratic voters
State and local Democratic Committees within the 12-15 Blue States.
(at the highest level of competition) The Executive Committee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
All of these groups want someone who will tell them what they want to hear, and they want the message to be delivered using terminology, tone, and mannerisms that is deemed appropriate within their rarified social circles.
Virtually all of these people listed above:
are members of the professional class, which is the de facto upper class in American society.
live within affluent neighborhoods within the large metro areas of the Northeast and Pacific coast.
have an ever-expanding number of litmus tests on policy issues.
suffer from group-think mentality based on Left-of-Center ideology.
watch and read media that confirms their prior convictions,
live in fear of their own people rejecting them over a slip of the tongue or minor social media post.
Virtually none of them regularly socialize with anyone from outside their bubble. They typically do not even like people who live outside their bubble.
The Democratic party, like most parties on the Left in democratic nations, has reached the end of a cul-de-sac and their entire moral identity is fighting against the rational instinct to turn the car around. Anyone who suggests turning the car around will be attacked on masse by the party faithful.
Worse, they all know it. So they would rather just keep pressing on the accelerator as hard as they can.
The only hope for the long-term competitiveness of the Democratic party on the federal level is the Republican party sabotaging itself. I have no doubt that it could happen. It might even be the most likely outcome, as the Republican party has almost the exact same internal problems as the Democratic, but they tend to revolve around personal loyalty to Donald Trump.
The difference is that the Republicans can survive self-sabotage and still win federal elections on the national level. The Democrats cannot. There are significantly more conservative voters than progressive voters, and they are not as geographically concentrated as progressive voters.
This means that in the current stalemate Republicans win:
The Presidency
The US Senate
The US House
(indirectly) the federal court system
The majority of governors and state legislatures.
Wings within the Democratic party
For decades the Democratic party was torn between three groups: Progressives, Liberals, and Moderates. Note: if you do not like those labels, feel free to substitute your own in your mind as you read. It is the concepts that matter, not the terminology.
From the late 1960s until about 2010, the Progressives had the energy and the ideals, but the Moderates had all the money, campaign expertise, and a clear majority of voters within the party. The Liberals were the ideological middle ground that shared the ideological views of the Progressives and the desire to win elections of the Moderates.
So the Liberals and the Moderate wings of the party worked together to win elections and pass Democratic legislation. The Progressive wing was frustrated, but they knew that they had nowhere else to go.
As Republicans slowly increased their victories in swing states and swing districts, they replaced Moderate Democrats with Conservative Republicans. The Moderate wing gradually fell apart once Bill Clinton left office. Meanwhile, the Progressives grew in strength within the party in each successive election.
2010: Intra-party tipping point
Somewhere during the Obama administration the power within the Democratic party completely flipped. The Moderates collapsed, and the Liberals are now terrified of disagreeing with the Progressives on most issues, particularly those regarding climate, energy, race, gender, sexuality, and immigration.
On issue after issue, almost all Democratic elected politicians take stands that are only slightly to the center of Progressives. They do so for one simple reason: Progressives dominate the party primaries in Blue states and Blue districts. Today, going against Progressives in their own district would be political suicide.
An unusual period of partisan balance
One thing to remember about American political history is that our politics since 1994 with two very competitive parties rotating in power has been very unusual. Throughout most of American history, one party has been the clear majority party on the federal level.
1792-1799, what later became the Federalist party was dominant although it was perhaps more accurate to call it a non-partisan system that aligned around the persona of George Washington.
1800-1828, the Democratic-Republican party was the dominant party.
1828-1860, the Democratic party was the dominant party.
1860-1896, the Republican party was the dominant party, although it was fairly competitive from 1876-1896.
1896-1932, the Republican party was the dominant party with a brief interlude under Woodrow Wilson when the Republican party split.
1932-1994, the Democratic party was the dominant party, although after 1968 the Republicans did well on the Presidential level.
1994-2024: a relative balance of power between the two parties at the federal level
2024-???: TBD
Is the partisan balance coming to an end?
I generally do not like to make predictions because the world is complicated and so many factors influence outcomes. You also never know when a “Black Swan” event will occur that totally upsets American politics. Having said that, however, I believe that the most likely outcomes for the next decade or two (in descending order of likelihood):
Republicans become the majority party on the federal level with the Democrats unable to win more than occasional governing majorities (i.e. Presidency plus governing majorities in both the House and Senate). This will create a turbulent transition period, but then it will shift to a new political stability.
I believe that this is the most likely outcome, but less than a 50% chance. Much will depend on the competence of the Trump administration within the next 15 months and the timing of the next economic recession.Republicans, particularly the Trump administration, sabotage themselves as much as Democrats, so the federal level remains competitive.
This will lead to constant political turbulence like we have seen over the last 8 years. This state is an inherently unstable situation that will likely not persist for long.Democrats split into two parties.
Let’s call the two new parties the Progressives and the Liberals. The more moderate Liberals will win support from Independents and many moderates from both parties.
Since a three-party system in a Presidential system with single-member districts is inherently unstable, this state is unlikely to persist.
One of these two parties will become the dominant party on the Left. Much depends on how competitive Liberals will be in Purple and Red states. If Liberals can be competitive in those states, it can become competitive on the federal level even without controlling Blue states. Progressives would control Blue states, while Liberals and Republicans fight it out in the rest of the nation.
This is likely the best possible outcome for the American Left, though it will not seem so at the time.A new centrist third party is created that replaces the Democrats as the dominant party of the Left. This will likely leave a Leftist rump of what was once the Democratic party.
Again, a three-party system is inherently unstable, but without the baggage of the Democratic party, a new centrist third party is likely to be far more competitive in Purple and Red states.
This is my preferred option, but I am far from optimistic that it will actually happen.Complete political meltdown with the potential to lead to civil war.
At times the future will look like it is going in this direction, but I doubt that it will get that far.
A true civil war would not end well for the Left unless they somehow win the military over to their side, which seems very unlikely. The most likely outcome of civil war will be the total destruction of the American Left, which will take generations for them to come back from (much like the last civil war did to the Democratic party).
Under all these scenarios, I believe Progressives will solidify their control over the large metro areas in the Northeast and the Pacific coast (as well as the states that surround them). This will be a Pyrrhic victory for Progressives, but it may take them years or decades to realize the scope of their defeat.
In sum, unless the Democrats figure out a way to moderate themselves internally, I just cannot see them being competitive on the federal level and in the majority of the states. Unfortunately for them, all the internal forces within the party are pushing them further and further to the Left.
What will the Republicans do with their power?
Your guess is as good as mine, though I have some suggestions here and more in this series of articles.
See also my other articles and podcasts on Ideology:
Why Ideologies Threaten Progress (Part 1 of 3-part podcast series)
Why ideologies fail (podcast)
Descent into a man-made Hell: Understanding modern Totalitarianism
You might also be interested in reading my “From Poverty to Progress” book series:
Michael, if you've never seen the movie Death of Stalin, I highly recommend it. Steve Buscemi is hilarious as a young Khrushchev. It's fiction, but still captures the late Stalinist era of Politburo backstabbing perfectly.
In my opinion, Obama was the fulcrum that enabled the Progressive wing to assume dominance.
I voted for Obama in 2008. I was optimistic that he would bridge the gap between white and black America. He was living proof that *no* level of attainment was denied due to race, as had once been the case.
But Obama legitimized and ennobled resentment. I'm still not sure whether he, himself, bore animus to the establishment--which was largely white, though in slow transition--or he simply saw the electoral potential of de-unifying the electorate and making a new coalition of malcontents looking for an external solution to their personal problems, which he encouraged them to express in deeply aggrieved terms.
So I did not vote for him in 2012, seeing him as dangerously divisive. It was as if he was the irresponsible bachelor uncle, who, on an extended visit, encourages the children to demand unwarranted goodies and privileges.
Then leaves...