logo
How Four Democrats Who Saved the Party Before Would Do It Again

How Four Democrats Who Saved the Party Before Would Do It Again

New York Times24-04-2025
Patrick Healy, the deputy Opinion editor, hosted an online conversation about the future of the Democratic Party with four veteran strategists and reformers who spearheaded the New Democrat movement that helped elect Bill Clinton to the presidency in 1992.
Patrick Healy: I caught some heat this winter from Democrats when I raised the idea that the party is in deeper trouble with voters than its leaders are admitting — perhaps even the kind of existential trouble that the party had in the 1970s and 1980s, when it lost four out of five presidential races to Republicans. Back then, many Americans saw the party as too liberal, untrustworthy on inflation and spending, and out of touch — culturally and economically — with middle-class and working-class Americans. The Democrats needed a big reset. And that's what happened after they lost the presidency again in 1988, with the rise and victory of Bill Clinton in 1992. The four of you played key roles in pushing for that reset and advising Clinton. I want to discuss how the Democrats got their groove back and what lessons there are for the party today.
Let's start with this question: How would you describe the Democrats after the 1988 election, when George H.W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis, and how would you compare that to the state of the Democratic Party today?
William A. Galston: People weren't buying what we were selling. Losing to Donald Trump the second time is a sign, I'm afraid, of exactly the same thing. Voters don't want what we're offering. We need a new offer.
Healy: Why weren't Americans wanting what Democrats were selling?
Al From: Democrats stood for weakness at home and in the world, big government and special interest groups, special pleadings.
Elaine Kamarck: We had cultural issues hanging over us, as we do today. And the problem is that because culture evokes emotion, if you are on the wrong side of a cultural issue, nobody hears your economics. Doesn't matter how many CHIPS programs you have or how much money you've put into education — nobody hears it.
Galston: I think a lot of ordinary Americans are asking themselves: Do the Democrats know how to draw lines anymore, or are they just pushed into extremes? You saw one of those issues figure pretty centrally in the 2024 election, when Republicans said Kamala Harris is for 'they/them' and Donald Trump is for you. That ad contained one of the most devastating tag lines in the history of American political advertising. And a lot of Democrats are pretending that that ad didn't make any difference.
Kamarck: Look, over 41 percent of Trump's ad spending was on anti-trans ads over about two weeks in October.
From: All you had to do was watch an N.F.L. game. You saw that ad.
Healy: Bill and Al brought up identity politics, 'special pleadings' — this notion that the Democratic Party becomes captive to certain groups or to a wing of the party.
Will Marshall: Everything was mediated through the desires and demands of 100 worthy interest groups. What we said was: Look, we were not winning these elections for a reason. So the first thing is to let the public know you've heard their message. Then: What are the new ideas?
Kamarck: Let me give you a perfect example. Bill Clinton's most frequently run commercial was 'End welfare as we know it.' It was a bumper sticker and it did two things simultaneously. It spoke to the people in the country and said: Yeah, we heard you, we got it — this welfare system rewards people for staying home, rewards people for having more children when they don't have any support for the children, this welfare system is a mess. But then he said 'as we know it' — so in other words, he wasn't doing a Reagan imitation, he was not throwing the whole thing out. He was saying: Let's change it. That was such a brilliant combination, and I think we need that again.
Galston: I was Walter Mondale's policy director during his 1984 presidential campaign. I got to see from the inside how honorable the New Deal tradition was — and how exhausted it was. In order to have a future, Democrats had to accept the fact that appeals about Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman no longer spoke to the present and could not chart a path to the future. I think that created an opening for a movement dedicated to a new kind of politics and a new set of ideas.
Healy: Why was it difficult to get the Democratic Party establishment to open up to reform, innovation, new ideas?
Kamarck: I'll speak to two issues: welfare. The African American community was, and rightfully so, hypersensitive to racism. Hypersensitive to a group of white people, as we are, saying this had to change. Now, we did focus groups on this. African Americans saw the same problems as white Americans did with welfare. So there was that hypersensitivity, which we still have with us in the party. And as somebody who's on the Democratic National Committee, I live it every, every time I'm at a D.N.C. meeting.
The second thing was the government itself. Ronald Reagan started the big critique of government. Bill Clinton was the one who famously said 'The era of big government is over.' F.D.R. created the modern government — that was sort of deep in the Democrats' DNA. They didn't want to let go of it. So a movement that would say: Hey, you know, we can do government differently, we can cut the cost, we can streamline it, et cetera, which is what reinventing government was. People were suspicious and nervous about it. It went against our roots.
Healy: Bill, why were Democrats so concerned about looking at their own problems? You had the 1980 loss. You had the '84 loss. Then '88. You had a big idea back then called the politics of evasion. Why was that such a part of what was going on in the party then?
Galston: Well, just in simple human terms, change is hard. It's one of the hardest things in the world. Changing ourselves as individuals with habits and vices is enormously difficult. Institutions aren't all that different.
Here I will be blunt, but I'll try not to be harsh. In every political party there are people who would rather be the majority in a minority party. Not a minority in the majority party. It is a question of power within the party. Giving up power that you've accrued over decades is enormously difficult. To which I would add there are, to steal a phrase from Elaine's old boss, inconvenient truths. And rather than acknowledge these inconvenient truths, you'd rather tell yourself stories. We called them myths. Joan Didion famously said, 'We tell ourselves stories in order to live.' Parties are like that, too.
Healy: How did Democrats manage to let go of such a foundational part of their DNA? Is it simply just losing three elections in a row, Elaine?
Kamarck: Clinton did a lot for that. Because Clinton stuck to reinventing government. He actually did it. I think a lot of people in the party thought that was a good campaign line and he wasn't going to really do it. And then we started cutting jobs. So in eight years we cut 426,000 jobs from the federal government. We did all sorts of modernization and cutting regulations, and I think people realized that it wasn't the end of the world, OK? The government still functioned — in fact, functioned better in some places because of the changes that we did.
So I think it took getting a president actually doing what he said he would do, and having it work out all right. Which, by the way, in the current situation, we have a president who's doing what he said he was going to do, but it may not work out all right.
From: Government ought to be the agent of our common endeavors and to help people and to help ourselves. But it's got to work. And if it doesn't work, then we're going to be ineffective politically.
Marshall: We got a lot of mileage out of just the simple idea that there was a brain-dead politics of left and right that we had to get beyond, and that we needed generational change. Something fresh. Ending welfare as we know it. National service. Public school choice. Reinventing government. All that generated energy and excitement, and it helped that we had a next-generation team with Clinton and Al Gore. To redefine a failing party you need to capture imagination, and it's got to be with a new offer, and it's got to be with creative ideas.
Galston: I just want to add a couple of points that I think are pertinent to our current circumstances. You don't have to be Frederick Douglass to believe that power never concedes without a struggle. Change is always a fight. You may win it, but that means somebody else has to lose. The party as a whole will never say, Huh, and fall in love. That's lesson No. 1. Second, the party redefines itself. Party reform may begin in Congress, but it can never end there, right? It ends when a leader, hoping to speak for the country as a whole, stands for the nomination, stands for the general election and enacts a new set of ideas.
Kamarck: Let me add one little angle here that I think is missing. You can't rebuild a party if you lose the base of the party. OK? So the question was: How did Bill Clinton manage to revolutionize the party but hold its base? And his secret weapon there, frankly, was Hillary. Hillary Clinton was deeply in the liberal wing of the party. She was one of the most important people in the Children's Defense Fund. The Children's Defense Fund didn't agree with anything we were doing right on welfare reform or family policy or anything like that. They were against us, but she was there and very active and very much a part of that campaign. While Bill Clinton was out there redefining, Hillary was reassuring. She was saying: Look, this guy's heart is in the right place, and we need to do a couple of changes.
From: His civil rights record was really important in that.
Galston: What drives history, I think, is individuals meeting their moment. And it's a very interesting speculation. Suppose that we had done all of these things but there had been no Bill Clinton, because he was a politician with extraordinary gifts. He is the single most persuasive human being that I've ever met. I do wonder, if we'd done everything right but hadn't had a leader like Bill Clinton, what would've happened?
From: It wouldn't have happened without Bill Clinton or a comparable talent.
Healy: Which idea was the most crucial, do you think, for Bill Clinton winning the primary and ultimately the general election in 1992?
Kamarck: It was welfare reform. Welfare reform cut to the cultural issue and allowed people to look at everything else.
From: It was clearly welfare reform. But it was another Progressive Policy Institute idea that made welfare reform possible, which was the expanded earned-income tax credit, so that we could make the argument that nobody who worked full-time in America should be poor. And the earned-income tax credit made that credible.
Marshall: Well, you're asking me to choose among my children. Welfare reform said, this is a different kind of Democrat. But let me just mention two others. First was reinventing government. The second one's national service. People hadn't been used to hearing the idea that you should serve something larger than yourself for quite a while, going back to Jack Kennedy. This idea was explicitly aimed to help us solve a particular political problem: the politics of entitlement. Any group that came along that demanded government benefits because they were oppressed or discriminated against could get them. People just hated this. It was at the root of the tax-and-spend disease that they also didn't like. So no more something for nothing.
Healy: Bill, what was the key?
Galston: Well, I am not going to break with the consensus. I do think it was welfare reform. Welfare reform was to the 1992 election what the 'they/them' Trump ad was to the 2024 election. But I want to add something. It speaks volumes that Bill Clinton, having run and to a substantial extent won on ending welfare as we know it, could not persuade the party to lead with it or to do anything about it for the first two years of his presidency. It wasn't until mid-1996 that he finally got it done.
Healy: What should today's Democratic Party learn from welfare reform?
Galston: I think people are going to have to take a deep breath and be willing to say things that previously were regarded as unsayable.
Healy: Elaine, what are some of those things today that are regarded as unsayable among Democrats but might actually resonate with Americans?
Kamarck: Well, I think that the new emergent issue is the transgender rights issue. And I think there the party needs to look for a way of doing both things that Clinton did with welfare. On the one hand, saying we get it to the public — you think this is very strange, you think this is frightening, you think that people, maybe children, are going to be hurt. We understand your worries. And yet at the same time they have to say: Look, there are people out there who are really hurting because they're born gender dysphoric. You cannot abandon your base. You can't stick a needle in the eye of your base. But you also have to say to the broader public: We understand your fears.
Marshall: Through four years of President Joe Biden, we spoke to white college graduates incessantly on almost every dimension: economic, cultural, foreign policy. We stopped talking to the 62 percent of the electorate that doesn't have a college degree. I think this is the hardest cultural challenge for the party right now. We don't know how to address their economic aspirations in a way that doesn't sort of throw government benefits at them. We're terrified if we do we'll somehow be crossing the line, becoming racist or nativist or xenophobic. We are now in this class configuration that was mercilessly revealed by this election. We have lost the knack of hearing, listening, going to working-class people and speaking the language that they understand. So you see the party retracting geographically, demographically. We're a shrunken party now.
From: You know, there's just something about having paid for two daughters to go through college — my view is that it's just wrong to ask the three-fifths of the country that doesn't have a college degree to pay for the tuition of those who do. If they would've just said: OK, we'll give a certain amount of forgiveness, but in exchange you have to spend a year or two in national service. It goes to that free lunch. And the problem is now the free lunch is often for this very small, highly educated class. I mean, it's us, too, but it sure doesn't represent a majority of the country.
Healy: I think about when Bill Clinton talked about shared sacrifice and national service in a sense of: We're all in this together. We're all giving and we're all receiving. What are the things now that Democrats need to speak about to voters who might be skeptical or don't see the party as credible?
Kamarck: Well, the first thing is immigration. I mean, we were simply on the wrong side of this issue. The country was being overrun and the interest groups — who did not have the backing of their members — were saying something that was easily translatable into open borders. So Democrats have to get right on immigration. They've got to figure out the cultural issue. And then inflation — they just didn't get it because, again, it goes to the class bias.
I think this is why the Democrats are so completely screwed up. We are now the party of well-to-do people. Look at that billion dollars Kamala Harris raised. Why? Because there's lots of upper-middle-class people in the Democratic Party. And so when you're upper-middle-class, you miss the impact of inflation. Because you are not the person who's going through the grocery store counting up in your head or on a piece of paper the cost of what's going into your cart.
Healy: How do you figure out how to talk about immigration or cultural values or inflation in a way that feels authentic to what regular people are experiencing? How do you figure that out as a party?
Kamarck: It's a product of politicians out there on the stump. And one of the things we learned in the 1980s was that the Washington-based politicians were much further away from this reality of what was happening to the party than were the governors and the county commissioners. Look at the Andy Beshears of the world. Look at the people winning in red states and say: What are they saying? How do they talk?
Galston: Let's take inflation as an object lesson for the party. Why do you think we got this bout of inflation? The Democratic message was price gouging by corporations. But that's not what the majority of the people say when you ask them that question. They say government overspending. If we're going to look at hard truths and try a 21st-century version of fiscal restraint — not slash and burn but some sense of limits, some sense that the Democratic Party knows how to draw the line — that's what people believe, and we never spoke to that. We never even tried to speak to that. And if we don't speak to that in the next four years, we may end up with the same result.
From: I mean, if people think that overpriming the pump causes inflation, you've got to slow down the pump.
Healy: What are some of the concrete lessons from your experience from 1988 to 1992 that apply to today? That the party should consider, that leaders should consider?
Marshall: The first message is change is possible. We're a minority party now. We've lost territory. We're not competitive in broad swaths of the country. We've lost 37 points with non-white working class voters since 2012, since Barack Obama's last election. If we can't reorient our economic thinking in general around everyday struggles of working people, we're not going to reach them.
Kamarck: I'll be short and simple. Don't be afraid of an intraparty fight. Don't be afraid of a fight because it's the fight that breaks through to the public and says: Oh, that party's still alive. They're not as brain-dead as I thought they were.
Healy: What do you think the most useful or productive fight would be over for the Democrats?
Kamarck: I think we've got to start with the cultural issues. 'Pregnant people'? 'Pregnant people'? Give me a break. I never heard of a pregnant people. When you start doing this hyper-, hyper-politically-correct language, people think you're crazy. You start with that and no one will hear the economic issues, the economic plan, no matter how good it is.
Galston: Without a fight, you get no change. But let's look at what preceded our fight. There was a statement of principles in 1990: the New Orleans declaration. There was the creation of themes: opportunity, responsibility, community. There was a development of compelling ideas, thanks to Will and the P.P.I. There was a master of persuasive communications and there was an ability to understand the public mood, getting the mood right. And 2024 was not the year for the politics of joy any more than 1968 was, when Hubert Humphrey, who invented the phrase 'the politics of joy,' tried to practice it in one of the least joyful years in American history.
Healy: Why didn't people buy it, Bill?
Galston: Why didn't people buy it? They weren't in a good mood. They weren't joyful. It looked like denial. It looked like you were tone-deaf.
From: We need ideas that break the mold. That's what welfare reform and national service did. They were defining ideas. On the cultural issues, identity politics — we all believe in diversity, but the way you get diversity is by having an agenda that attracts all kinds of people. And finally, you've got to find a leader, and it'll take a while to find that leader.
Healy: What leaders do you see as at least having promise? Who's open to having that intraparty debate that Elaine talked about, or the kinds of ideas that Will was getting at?
Galston: Well, let me just give you an example. One thing that really cut through the muck was Gov. Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania rebuilding that highway in 12 days. OK? Eleven days. What that said to a skeptical public is we can make government work. It doesn't need to take 10 years to get a permit. We need to think about a government that works efficiently and effectively for the people and can accomplish jobs in real time.
Marshall: Josh Shapiro would've been my first choice for the same reasons that Bill's articulated. Josh Stein in North Carolina's a good guy.
Healy: The new governor there.
Marshall: He just fought the Republican legislature successfully. They're trying to do the big expansion of universal vouchers and privatize public education. Those Democrats governing in red states are people we should be looking at because they know how to compete in difficult environments. I'm very taken by the Colorado Democrats. In 2004 this state was red, very substantially red. And there was an amazingly conscious effort, sort of like a mini Democratic Leadership Council effort in Colorado, all the big interest groups, but also a lot of change-oriented thinkers got together, and donors, and they turned a red state blue and yielded a bumper crop of really pragmatic, thoughtful people. Senator Michael Bennet. Jared Polis is one of the best governors in the country.
From: I like people who are willing to step out and say things that everybody knows are true. I think Gavin Newsom's been doing a good job. He has a disadvantage of being from California. Rahm Emanuel has been terrific. Josh Shapiro. Gov. Wes Moore of Maryland. I love Elissa Slotkin. Basically, to me, it comes back to one word. And that's courage. Because if you say the things you need to say to begin to change the party, you're going to get a big backlash. As Bill Galston said, change is never easy.
Kamarck: I like the idea of Democratic governors from red states because they have lived this and they've got sensitivities. One of the problems I think we have is that as the party has shrunk back to its base, we've got a lot of New York and California thinkers. They may think they're trying to get the mood of the country, but they've grown up politically in places that are just far left of the center that I think we're trying to capture. I think Josh Shapiro's great. Andy Beshear is great. I have a soft spot for Wes Moore — this is a man who has the cool of Barack Obama and the warmth of Bill Clinton. I've never seen this combination in one person.
Healy: In the end, how did the Democratic Leadership Council help get the Democratic Party establishment and leaders to be open in ways that they weren't through a lot of the 1980s? What's one lesson that you want Democrats today to take away from that?
Kamarck: We won the primaries, right? We won the primaries. Think about how different this 2024 election might've been had Joe Biden stepped down from the presidency at the end of 2022, allowed for a wide open 2023-24 primary with all these different people that we've mentioned — the new generation running. Imagine if, first of all, if Harris had won the primary, she would've been in a much better position. She would've looked like her own person. The primaries are where you test these things. And that's where it'll happen in 2027.
From: We won the war of ideas, but most importantly, we had a candidate who beat him in the primaries.
Marshall: We have to aim higher. We have to aim at building a bigger majority. There are a lot of Democrats who are tempted today to say: Well, look what's happening to Trump. He's underwater on his tariffs. He's underwater on his mauling of government. People are not happy about abandoning Ukraine. I heard this argument the other night with a bunch of Democrats — we shouldn't be debating each other. We should be keeping the spotlight intensely on our opponent in hopes of eking out a 49.3 percent victory next time that leaves us in this Ping-Ponging back-and-forth situation in American politics. A virtual tie that we've been in since 2012. We've got to break out of this syndrome, and it's in everybody's interest that we understand that we have a big job of reaching working-class voters. And that's just going to require a completely different orientation of our ideas and our political strategies.
Galston: F.D.R. sparked a revolution inside the Democratic Party that lasted for three generations. Ronald Reagan sparked a revolution inside the Republican Party that lasted for two generations. We gained, at best, an incomplete victory. After Bill Clinton, it became clear that the party had accepted only some of the change that he stood for. And so I agree with Will — we have to think bigger this time, a larger and more enduring majority. And whoever will carry the torch for the next generation of Democrats will have to be even bolder than we were.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump hosts Starmer in Scotland, promoting his own golf club
Trump hosts Starmer in Scotland, promoting his own golf club

Washington Post

time2 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Trump hosts Starmer in Scotland, promoting his own golf club

EDINBURGH, Scotland — President Donald Trump has transformed the private green at his Turnberry golf course into a venue for high-stakes diplomacy. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer arrived Monday morning to meet with the president near the fairway to hash out a trade deal and discuss the wars in Gaza and Ukraine. On Sunday, European Union Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the contours of a trade deal at the private club. The meetings provide the latest example of how Trump uses his presidential power not only to govern, but also to help his family businesses. The engagements provide publicity for the courses and funnel taxpayer funds to the Trump Organization, as the U.S. government pays to lodge staff and security details at the properties. Traditionally, American presidents are invited to other countries by their leaders and hosted at diplomatic residences. But Trump is playing host to Starmer in the prime minister's own country, continuing his long tradition of sidestepping presidential norms to mix his family business and his public office. 'It is an unusual dynamic, but that is more of an issue for the U.S.,' said David Henig, director of the U.K. Trade Policy Project for the European Centre for International Political Economy. 'U.K. prime ministers have always said, we will just deal with the U.S. presidents as we find them.' Asked about the potential conflicts of interest, White House officials noted that the golf courses are held in a trust managed by Trump's children. 'President Trump's working trip to Scotland has already been a huge success, securing a historic trade agreement with the EU. President Trump is always acting in the best interest of the American people delivering GOOD deals that put America First,' White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said in a written statement. 'Donald J. Trump has built the best and most beautiful world-class golf courses anywhere in the world, which is why they continue to be used for prestigious tournaments and by the most elite players in the sport.' Trump and Starmer told reporters Monday that they plan to discuss tariffs — including those levied on whisky — and aid to Gaza and Ukraine. In an exchange with reporters as Starmer arrived, Trump said he plans to shorten the 50-day deadline he gave Russian President Vladimir Putin to reach a ceasefire in Ukraine, reflecting his mounting frustration with the Kremlin. He also repeated his complaint that no one has said 'thank you' for aid the United States has sent to Gaza for food, where deaths from starvation and malnutrition are rising, and stressed his continued focus on rescuing Israeli hostages. Trump's visit, which includes the opening of a new golf course in Aberdeenshire, on Scotland's east coast, will cost American taxpayers millions of dollars for travel and security. While all other presidents in the era of jet travel have regularly used Air Force One for personal travel and are protected by the Secret Service as they do so, the government was not paying hotel fees to businesses they owned to house security details or White House staff. The U.S. government paid $68,800 to Trump's Turnberry resort in 2018 to cover the cost of Trump's visit to the course on Scotland's west coast during his first term, according to a report in the Scotsman newspaper. In between negotiating trade accords and batting back questions about the Jeffrey Epstein files, Trump used his time in Scotland over the weekend to promote the course. He posted videos of himself golfing on Truth Social, the social network he partially owns. He also cited praise from the retired professional golfer Gary Player. 'The Great Gary Player: 'Turnberry is, without a question, in the Top Five Greatest Golf Courses I've ever played in my 73 years as a Pro.' Thank you, Gary!'' he wrote. Trump Turnberry was one of Trump's most expensive properties and has struggled to turn a profit since his company purchased it in 2014. Trump spent $67 million to buy the property and an additional $144 million to renovate it. The course lost $1.7 million in the 2023 fiscal year, according to a filing from the company which operates the course. Trump has some supporters in the Turnberry area, where his club is a significant employer, but also many detractors. Scotts have hosted demonstrations across the country this week in protest of his stay. 'We're operating in nonstandard territory in terms of seeing him using Scotland as just a meeting room and use his properties as a venue for trade talks,' said Jack Nevin, who organized a protest Saturday in Edinburgh on behalf of Stop Trump Coalition. 'It's par for the course with his rank corruption and promoting his own businesses as president.' Amy B Wang contributed to this report.

The Death of Democracy Promotion
The Death of Democracy Promotion

Atlantic

time2 minutes ago

  • Atlantic

The Death of Democracy Promotion

On April 29, 1999, precision-guided NATO bombs tore through the brick facades of two defense-ministry buildings in Belgrade, the capital of the rump state of Yugoslavia. The targets were chosen more for symbolic reasons than operational ones: The American-led coalition wanted to send the country's authoritarian government, at that time engaged in a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, a clear message that human rights weren't just words. They were backed by weapons. For decades, the ruins of the buildings, on either side of a major artery through central Belgrade, were left largely untouched. Tangled concrete and twisted rebar stuck out of pancaked floors. Serbian architects fought to preserve the destroyed buildings; the government has treated them as a war memorial. At the time of the 1999 NATO bombings, Aleksandar Vučić, Serbia's minister of information, was tasked with denouncing the West and backing his country's despot, Slobodan Milošević. Today, Vučić has risen in the ranks to become Serbia's president—an apologist for Russia who attacks the press, has been accused of nurturing close ties to organized crime, and is rapidly dragging his country toward authoritarianism. Vučić is not Milošević—he has not led his country into genocidal wars or faced judgment for war crimes at The Hague—but until recently, he might have expected that his authoritarian style would make relations with Washington rocky. That time is past. Instead of harshly condemning Serbia's abuses, America's president, Donald Trump, will build a Trump Tower Belgrade on top of the defense buildings' ruins. 'Belgrade welcomes a Global Icon,' the slick website for Trump Belgrade proclaims. 'TRUMP. Unrivaled Luxury.' The contract for the project has been signed with Affinity Partners, Jared Kushner's investment firm, which is largely funded with billions of dollars in cash from Saudi Arabia. This story is the material expression of the second Trump administration's turn against a long-standing tradition of Western democracy promotion—and of an embrace of conflicts of interest from which the world's despots can only take inspiration. The authoritarians who govern small countries such as Serbia no longer need to fear the condemnation, much less the bombs, of the American president when they crack down on their opponents, enrich themselves, or tighten their grip on power. On the contrary—the American flirtation with similar practices emboldens them. With Trump's unapologetic foreign policy in his second term, American democracy promotion is effectively dead. Prior to the Soviet Union's collapse, Western diplomats cared far more about whether a dictator was an ally or adversary to the Soviets than about the quality of a country's elections or its respect for human rights. If diplomats from Washington or London pushed too hard for democracy, there was a credible risk that a Western ally could defect and become a friend to Moscow. Once the Soviet Union ceased to exist, the world's despots no longer had so much cover; Western diplomats could now push harder. New norms developed, which led to a rapid surge in the number of competitive, multiparty elections. Human rights were no longer just an aspirational buzzword. Some countries lost foreign aid or were shunned by the international community if their government committed atrocities. This pressure to adopt democracy and protect human rights was never applied equally. Powerful countries, such as a rising China, became largely immune to Western cajoling. And strategically important countries, such as Saudi Arabia, in many cases got a free pass, facing little more than rhetorical condemnation while presidents and prime ministers continued to shake hands and ink major arms deals. Meanwhile, in smaller countries, such as Togo, Madagascar, or the former Yugoslavia, the post–Cold War push for democracy and human rights often came not just with lip service, but also with teeth. After all, the White House could afford to lose the goodwill of Madagascar in a dispute over values; its geopolitical priorities would suffer little downside. Moreover, weak countries such as Madagascar depended on foreign aid, such that Western governments wielded far more leverage in them than they did in larger, more self-sufficient countries. For a while, then, small-time despots faced a credible threat: Go too far, rights defenders could hope to warn strongmen, and a Western ambassador could soon be knocking on the palace door. None of this is to say that Western powers were always on the side of the angels. During the Cold War, Western governments made lofty speeches about democracy and human rights while funding coups and arming politically convenient rebels. The CIA played a role in overthrowing popularly legitimate governments, such as those of Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, and Salvador Allende in Chile. Even after the Cold War, Western governments have cozied up to plenty of friendly dictatorships, in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Equatorial Guinea. And yet, particularly in the last 30 years, Western pressure and foreign aid have been significant forces for global democratization. Dictators and despots knew that the world was paying attention, which gave them pause before they turned their guns on their own people. Foreign aid became tied to the verdicts of election monitors, which drastically expanded operations after the end of the Cold War. With funding from the United States and other Western governments, opposition parties, journalists, and civil-society organizations received training on how to bolster democracy. And when political transitions toward democracy took place, as in Tunisia after the Arab Spring, billions of dollars in support flowed in. Partly because of these shifting international norms, the expansion of political freedom was so abrupt after the end of the Cold War that many believed democracy, having won the ideological battle against rival models of governance such as fascism and communism, had become an inexorable force. But the democracy boom under Bill Clinton gave way to failed wars under George W. Bush and inaction under Barack Obama. Bush, who justified wars in Afghanistan and Iraq partly under the guise of a democracy-and-freedom agenda, inadvertently discredited the notion of values-based 'nation building.' A widespread perception among American adversaries took root that democracy promotion was just a code word for 'regime change carried out by American troops.' This gave dictators political cover to boot out international NGOs hoping to bolster democracy and human rights, branding them as mere precursors for a heavy-handed invasion. Obama, picking up the pieces of that failed foreign policy, downplayed the grand vision of a more democratic world as a guiding principle of American diplomacy, even as countries across the globe began to pivot toward authoritarian rule. Now the world is steadily becoming less democratic. According to data from Freedom House, the world has become more authoritarian every year since 2006. Trump's second term may provide the most potent autocratic accelerant yet. In his first term, Trump routinely praised dictators, including in a memorable moment when he boasted about exchanging 'beautiful letters' with North Korea's tyrant. President Joe Biden, with his much-touted Summit for Democracy, tried to recenter democracy as a core principle of the State Department, but that effort was overtaken by successive geopolitical emergencies in Ukraine and Gaza. Now, with his return to power, Trump has gone further than before to fully uproot democracy promotion from American foreign policy. The list of dismantled initiatives is long. In the first months of the second Trump administration, Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency not only slashed America's foreign-aid machinery, effectively destroying USAID, but also targeted the National Endowment for Democracy: a bipartisan grant-making organization established under Ronald Reagan to strengthen democratic values abroad. The Trump administration has effectively kneecapped Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, outlets that have aimed to provide news and information to those living under oppressive regimes. Once viewed as bulwarks against authoritarian censorship, these platforms are now overseen by Trump acolyte Kari Lake. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently announced an overhaul of the State Department that effectively eliminates programs that work toward peace building and democracy. As an extra gift to the world's despots, on July 16, Rubio signaled that America will no longer stand in the way of election rigging: Washington will condemn autocrats who use sham election-style events to stay in power only if a major American foreign-policy interest is at stake, the secretary made clear, and from now on, American comments on foreign elections will be 'brief, focused on congratulating the winning candidate and, when appropriate, noting shared foreign policy interests.' The world's worst dictators can rest assured that the next American diplomat to come knocking on their palace doors is more likely to be looking for property rights than human rights. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, which always have had a free pass, might not notice the difference. But brutal regimes in less-noticed parts of the world have now gotten the memo that the Trump White House is indifferent to democracy and human rights, and they are acting accordingly. Cambodia has cracked down on journalists while courting American military officials. Tanzania's leader recently arrested his main rival and charged him with treason. Indonesia's president has begun changing laws, militarizing the country, and undermining the principle of civilian rule. Nigeria's president made a power grab that critics say was blatantly illegal. And El Salvador's president, Nayib Bukele, who had faced international criticisms for egregious human-rights abuses, isn't just absolved from American pressure—he's become a much-celebrated friend of the White House, lauded because of his gulags. Already, in regions such as Southeast Asia, brave pro-democracy reformers find themselves newly vulnerable and isolated. In Myanmar, pro-democracy forces fighting the country's military dictatorship long benefitted from American aid. The DOGE cuts put an end to that—and gave the repressive junta an enormous boost. In Thailand, a human-rights organization that once sheltered dissidents fleeing Cambodia and Laos has been forced to close its safehouses, allowing those regimes to more easily hunt down and even kill their opponents. These funding streams had accounted for a tiny proportion of the U.S. government's budget, but their elimination sends a strong signal to the world's autocrats: that virtually no one will now interfere with their designs. Admittedly, the United States is less powerful than it once was, and other countries have always had their own domestic agendas, regardless of what Washington has said or done. But that a growing number of the world's despots no longer have to weigh economic costs or diplomatic consequences for crushing their opponents has already made a difference. Thomas Carothers and Oliver Stuenkel of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace highlighted the fact that shortly after Musk referred to USAID as a 'criminal organization,' autocrats in Hungary, Serbia, and Slovakia began targeting pro-democracy NGOs that had received money from the agency. President Reagan once celebrated the United States as a 'shining city on a hill,' a 'beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.' That is apparently no longer the aspiration of the American government, which now sends its foreign pilgrims to a dehumanizing prison in El Salvador, arrests judges, and suggests that following the country's Constitution may be optional. For democracy to flourish, citizens must yearn for it—and demand it of their governments. At the moment, few can be looking with admiration to the United States as a model. Already in 2024, according to a 34-country survey conducted by Pew Research, the most common perception of American democracy was that the United States 'used to be a good example, but has not been in recent years.' The first months of the second Trump administration can hardly have improved that impression. Nonetheless, democracy—which provides citizens with a meaningful say over how their lives are governed—still has mass appeal across the globe. Brave, principled activists continue to stand up to despots, even though they do so at much greater peril today than even just a few months ago. In Serbia, for example, pro-democracy, anti-corruption protests have persisted for months. Students and workers are demanding immediate reforms and calling on Vučić to resign. In years past, precisely this kind of movement would have provoked White House press releases, diplomatic visits, and barbed statements from the Oval Office. In April, at long last, came a high-profile visit to Serbia from someone closely linked to the Trump administration. But instead of offering support for the pro-democracy demonstrators, this American emissary condemned the protests and implied that they were the sinister work of American left-wingers and USAID. That visitor was none other than Donald Trump Jr., who had arrived in Belgrade to fawn over Vučić in an exclusive interview for his Triggered with Don Jr. podcast, in the months before the newest Trump Tower opens for presales.

Darren Walker's new book is still hopeful despite growing inequality as he leaves Ford Foundation
Darren Walker's new book is still hopeful despite growing inequality as he leaves Ford Foundation

The Hill

time4 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Darren Walker's new book is still hopeful despite growing inequality as he leaves Ford Foundation

NEW YORK (AP) — Darren Walker needed to be convinced of his new book's relevance. The outgoing Ford Foundation president feared that 'The Idea of America,' set to publish in September just before he leaves the nonprofit, risked feeling disjointed. In more than eight dozen selected texts dating back to 2013, he reflects on everything from his path as a Black, gay child from rural Texas into the halls of premiere American philanthropies to his solutions for reversing the deepening inequality of our 'new Gilded Age.' 'To be clear, not everything I said and wrote over the last 12 years is worthy of publication,' Walker said. A point of great regret, he said, is that he finds American democracy weaker now than when he started. Younger generations lack access to the same 'mobility escalator' that he rode from poverty. And he described President Donald Trump's administration's first six months as 'disorienting' for a sector he successfully pushed to adopt more ambitious and just funding practices. Despite that bleak picture, Walker embraces the characterization of his upcoming collection as patriotic. 'My own journey in America leaves me no option but to be hopeful because I have lived in a country that believed in me,' he said. Walker recently discussed his tenure and the book's call for shared values with the Associated Press inside his Ford Foundation office — where an enlarged picture of a Black child taken by Malian portrait photographer Seydou Keïta still hangs, one of many underrepresented artists' works that populated the headquarters under his leadership. This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity. Q: Upon becoming Ford Foundation's president, you suggested that 'our most important job is to work ourselves out of a job' — a 2013 statement you include in the book. How would you grade your efforts? A: The past 12 years have been both exhilarating and exhausting. Exhilarating because there's never been a more exciting time to be in philanthropy. And exhausting because the political, socioeconomic dynamics of the last 12 years are very worrisome for our future. Philanthropy can play a role in helping to strengthen our democracy. But philanthropy can't save America. I would probably give myself a B or a B-. I don't think where we are as a nation after 12 years is where any country would want to be that had its eye on the future and the strength of our democracy. Q: Is there anything you would do differently? A: In 2013 and those early speeches, I identified growing inequality as a challenge to the strength of our democracy. And a part of that manifestation of growing inequality was a growing sense of disaffection — from our politics, our institutions, our economy. For the first time, a decade or so ago, we had clear evidence that working class white households were increasingly downwardly mobile economically. And the implications for that are deep and profound for our politics and our democracy. We started a program on increasing our investments in rural America, acknowledging some of the challenges, for example, of the trends around the impacts of the opioid epidemic on those communities. I underestimated the depth and the collective sense of being left behind. Even though I think I was correct in diagnosing the problem, I think the strategy to respond was not focused enough on this population. Q: Many people credit you for using Ford Foundation's endowment to increase grantmaking during the pandemic. Is that sort of creativity needed now with the new strains faced by the philanthropic sector? A: One of the disappointments I have with philanthropy is that we don't take enough risk. We don't innovate given the potential to use our capital to provide solutions. I do think that, in the coming years, foundations are going to be challenged to step up and lean in in ways that we haven't since the pandemic. The 5% payout is treated as a ceiling by a lot of foundations and, in fact, it's a floor. During these times when there's so much accumulated wealth sitting in our endowments, the public rightly is asking questions about just how much of that we are using and towards what end. Q: Where do you derive this sense of 'radical hope' at the end of your book? A: As a poor kid in rural Texas, I was given the license to dream. In fact, I was encouraged to dream and to believe that it will be possible for me to overcome the circumstances into which I was born. I've lived on both sides of the line of inequality. And I feel incredibly fortunate. But I'm also sobered by the gap between the privileged and the poor and the working-class people in America. It has widened during my lifetime and that is something I worry a lot about. But I'm hopeful because I think about my ancestors who were Black, enslaved, poor. African Americans, Black people, Black Americans have been hopeful for 400 years and have been patriots in believing in the possibility that this country would realize its aspirations for equality and justice. That has been our North Star. Q: Heather Gerken, the dean of Yale's law school, was recently named as your successor. Why is it important to have a leader with a legal background and an expertise in democracy? A: She is the perfect leader for Ford because she understands that at the center of our work must be a belief in democracy and democratic institutions and processes. She is also a bridge builder. She is a coalition builder. She's bold and courageous. I'm just thrilled about her taking the helm of the Ford Foundation. It is a signal from the Ford Foundation Board of Trustees that we are going to double down on our investment and our commitment to strengthening, protecting and promoting democracy. Q: Youtold AP last year that, when you exited this building for the last time, you'd only be looking forward. What does 'forward' mean to you now? A: I have resolved that I don't want to be a president or a CEO. I don't need to be a president of CEO. I think leaders can become nostalgic and hold onto their own history. Now there's no doubt, I know, that my obituary is going to say, 'Darren Walker, the president of the Ford Foundation.' That's the most important job I'll ever have. But hopefully I'll be able to add some more important work to that. ___

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store