Better in their words…

Talk about a tough job.
==============
WSJ By William A. Galston 2/8/2017

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has the toughest job in Washington, and nothing on the horizon is likely to make it any easier. By Election Day the tactics and tone of the Trump campaign had already rubbed Democrats’ nerves raw. The massive turnout for the Women’s March the day after the inauguration revealed the anger and fear Donald Trump’s victory had generated in the Democratic grass roots. Then in quick succession came ideologically confrontational cabinet nominations for Labor, Education, HHS and EPA; the executive order on immigration and refugees; and the president’s pick to fill the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court.

A progressive uprising observers are already comparing to the tea party has put Democratic senators under intense pressure to reject everything and everybody the Trump administration proposes. Mr. Schumer felt compelled to vote against confirming Elaine Chao, the wife of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, as secretary of transportation— a notable breach of the comity that once characterized what used to be called the world’s greatest deliberative body until it was no longer possible to utter this phrase with a straight face.

The next few months’ legislative agenda could make matters even worse. First will come votes repealing regulations put in place late in the Obama administration, followed by a bill that repeals ObamaCare and replaces as much of it as the rules governing the budget reconciliation procedure will allow. This strategy will allow Republicans to proceed without Democratic support, which is not likely to be forthcoming under these circumstances.

The confirmation process for Neil Gorsuch, a highly credentialed judge who combines the jurisprudence of Justice Scalia with the demeanor of Jimmy Stewart, will probably yield a filibuster by Democrats still smarting over Sen. McConnell’s 10-month blockade of President Obama’s pick, the equally well qualified Merrick Garland. In turn, this will trigger a party-line vote eliminating the 60-vote threshold for Supreme Court nominees. By the time Congress reaches issues that might permit a measure of bipartisan compromise, the well may be thoroughly poisoned. If this sequence of events were compatible with the longterm interests of the Democratic Party, Mr. Schumer’s task would be straightforward if aesthetically unattractive. Unfortunately for Democrats, it is not.

In November 2018, 33 senators will be up for re-election; 25 are Democrats or independents who caucus with the Democrats, and 10 of them are at risk. Five Democrats—Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Claire Mc-Caskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia—represent red states that Mitt Romney carried easily. Donald Trump did even better, romping to victory with margins between 19 and 42 percentage points. In 2012 Mr. Tester received only 49% of the vote; Mr. Donnelly, 50%; Ms. Heitkamp, 51%.
Another tranche of Democrats— Florida’s Bill Nelson, Michigan’s Debbie Stabenow, Ohio’s Sherrod Brown, Pennsylvania’s Bob Casey Jr. and Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin—represent five of the six states President Trump moved from the Democratic column in 2012 to the Republicans in 2016. It requires little imagination to predict where Mr. Trump will be campaigning in the fall of 2018, or the effect his presence may have among the workingclass voters who gave him his margin of victory in 2016.

Sen. Schumer’s overriding political imperative is to prevent Republicans from widening their Senate majority next year. To maximize his chances, he will have to allow endangered Democrats to go their own way on votes that could be used to bolster their opponents. This means defending them when they break with bluestate Democrats while doing his best to forestall debilitating primary challenges from disgruntled progressives. The formula for Democratic victory in North Dakota and West Virginia is very different from Vermont and Massachusetts, a reality that the supporters of Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren must be persuaded to accept.

This is Mr. Schumer’s thankless task, which he cannot evade, whatever the shortterm impact on the support he enjoys from his party’s left wing. The alternative—an ideologically driven purge of Democratic moderates—could consign the party to minority status for a generation.

Those of a certain age cannot suppress a sigh of recognition. The clash between partisan zeal and the imperatives of building a majority helped bring about three consecutive national defeats in the 1980s until Bill Clinton and the New Democrats found a formula for leading their party out of the wilderness. Apparently their legacy—peace, vigorous economic growth and widely shared prosperity—is not good enough for today’s progressives, who view the 1990s as a period of unprincipled capitulation.

George Santayana famously remarked that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. He might have added that even those who can remember are condemned to the same fate.

Rebelling against Trump is tempting, but moderation is the key to majority status.