Intelligence Squared debate: Will progressive populism save the Democratic Party?
A new debate from the Intelligence Squared series focused on the Democratic Party at a crossroads.
As Democrats look beyond the midterm election two weeks from today, they must consider the future direction of their party.
Should Democrats champion centrist policies to win back disillusioned working-class voters or move in a progressive or "democratic socialist" direction?
The Intelligence Squared debate motion is: "Progressive populism will save the Democratic Party."
Create a More Connected Minnesota
MPR News is your trusted resource for the news you need. With your support, MPR News brings accessible, courageous journalism and authentic conversation to everyone - free of paywalls and barriers. Your gift makes a difference.
For the motion:
Karine Jean-Pierre, national spokesperson and senior adviser for MoveOn.org.
"At MoveOn, our millions of members form a big part of the Democratic base. As we listened carefully to our members, we learned about their priorities and what motivates them. And it's not centrism, and it's not incrementalism. It's a bold, progressive vision for our future."
Against the motion:
Jonathan Cowan, co-founder and president of Third Way.
"The evidence is overwhelming that populist ideas will not help Democrats regain the White House or majorities. They might look good on a bumper sticker. But when voters hear about the details, support crumbles."
For the motion:
Jeff Weaver, campaign manager for Bernie Sanders's 2016 Presidential campaign and author of "How Bernie Won."
"This cannot be a party of only upper-middle-income people, of only well-to-do suburbanites. This has got to be a party that also represents working-class people and marginalized communities. And, what those people understand is that we have big problems in this country and we need bold solutions."
Against the motion:
Steven Rattner, chairman and CEO of Willett Advisors LLC.
"I don't believe that endorsing policy ideas that are either unaffordable, or make little economic sense, or will do more harm than good, or all three, would somehow be good politics for the Democratic party."