I’ve been wanting to write a little something about this article in The New York Times. It’s a good piece of reporting, but also exemplifies a fatalistic view of American politics that’s become pervasive not only in reporting, but in a lot of mainstream political thinking by people who frankly should know better.
Titled “A ‘Blue’ Florida? There Are No Quick Demographic Fixes for Democrats,” it takes a look at the ramifications of a state ballot initiative to re-enfranchise 1.5 million former felons, as well as of the influx of Puerto Rican refugees in the wake of Hurricane Maria. The article throws cold water on progressive hopes that these new voters — who tend to vote for Democrats — will actually make much of a difference in the state’s politics. To back this up, it points to low turnout rates among the former group, and the fact that the split between Democratic and Republican voters in the latter is not so large. It also notes countervailing demographic changes, including the continued influx of conservative-leaning retirees into the Sunshine State.
On the one hand, the reminder that the Democrats can’t rely on demographics alone is a salutary one — who among us does not feel annoyed by all those prognostications that the Democrats need only sit back and wait for favorable population shifts to deliver them a permanent majority from sea to shining sea? Particularly when some Democrats took these trends as an excuse not to take more seriously the economic and cultural challenges that have delivered unto us the surprising yet wholly predictable presidency of Donald J. Trump?
Yet a more sobering analysis based on raw numbers and extrapolations from past trends is not so useful if too many progressives take it as predetermined fate rather than important information that might drive action to better their chances of success. For instance, are we to really believe that organizers in Florida have made such a massive and ground-breaking effort to re-enfranchise felons without any thought to trying to encourage those citizens to use their regained votes? Likewise, can we really anticipate that Puerto Ricans forced to flee their homeland — in part because of the incompetence of our president — will vote in the same numbers and for the same parties as in past elections, or that no one will bother to rally and organize them? We should beware a mindset — including in ourselves — that tells us that change is so very difficult, that ignores the benefits of organization and enthusiasm.
And in the wake of the mass shooting at a Parkland high school, we see the outlines of how quickly political shifts can happen, particularly when they’re a catalyzing of forces that have long been building up without being effectively channeled. We’re also reminded how significant political change often doesn’t come from a single source, but through the convergence of overlapping factors. In this case, Florida suddenly seems like it could take a much more progressive turn because demographic changes, outrage over gun violence, and a vociferous opposition to President Trump may well synergize into outcomes that a more static view of politics would not have anticipated. It’s a wake-up call that there’s always a point to fighting for change we believe in, even when the odds seem stacked against us: we can never really anticipate when the tide will turn, and citizens formerly on the sidelines rally en masse to a common cause.
