Strategist James Carville, linked to , was wrong. Days before the 2024 election, he published it in the New York Times. Now he has returned to and discuss his reasons.
Carville’s error had a particular aspect. When making the prediction, the strategist ignored a maxim he himself coined in 1992, establishing that the determining factor of any election is .
This led the Democratic Party to the realization that its economic platform no longer convinces the electorate and pushed the working classes towards Trump. Carville suggests an alternative that represents a deep dive (by American standards) into what he describes as a populist program.
The central argument is that the left needs to confront the right in the economic arena by resorting to a frustration similar to that used by Trump and forcing Republicans to retreat to unpopular points in their agenda.
To do this, the left-wing establishment should take up banners considered extravagant, such as increasing the minimum wage from US$7.25 to US$15 per hour, forcing the right to oppose the idea. Republicans would be left with the burden of defending tax cuts for the richest and increasing the cost of healthcare for the poorest.
The appears in Carville’s definition without the pejorative charge of recent decades. The word mainly refers to the opposition between people and elites which, in the current political cycle, has also been exploited by right-wing leaders around the world.
In the case of the American left, the idea of a populist turn refers to the bifurcation that Democrats faced in 2016, when they followed the establishment behind Hillary Clinton instead of embracing , who had a platform worthy of that adjective.
The path appears, with its nuances, before a Brazilian left that seeks to reconnect with the working classes. Not surprisingly, the topic most cited as an asset in these sectors is the .
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
