Why Tim Walz's progressive support is great for Democrats
Also: Trump's racist self-immolation in front of Black journalists.
This free edition of Public Notice is made possible by paid subscribers. If you aren’t one already, please sign up to support our independent journalism.
By Noah Berlatsky
Two weeks ago, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz was largely unknown nationally. Today, he’s a widely beloved Democratic figure and a leading candidate to become Kamala Harris’s running mate. It’s a startling and disorienting political ascent. How did it happen?
Part of his sudden success is due to Walz himself, whose avuncular charisma plays well on television, and whose strong record in Minnesota gives him a lot of bragging rights.
Walz has also benefited, though, from the fact that progressives and the left have settled upon him as a pragmatic compromise.
Left presidential preferences over the last decade have been dominated by Bernie Sanders, a unique and to some degree anti-establishment figure who promised to seize the party from its current leadership and turn it into a vehicle for radical change. Walz is a very different politician, and his embrace by progressives suggests a new willingness to work within the Democratic Party.
That willingness might translate into more influence within the coalition. It also might signal greater Democratic strength and unity.
Walz’s wins
A lot of Walz’s recent national success is directly the result of the talents of one Tim Walz.
Before running for office, Walz spent 24 years in the National Guard and worked as a high school history teacher in Mankato, where he helped form Mankato West’s first Gay-Straight Alliance at a time when LGBT people were marginalized.
Walz has a long and impressive record of electoral, personal, and policy successes in Democratic politics. He was elected to Congress from a rural southern Minnesota district in 2006, a year Democrats picked up 30 seats, and was elected freshman class president by his colleagues. His local focus and popularity allowed him to hold the seat through the red waves of 2010 and 2014.
Trump won the district by 15 points in 2016. But even then Walz wasn’t dislodged, winning the district by a point. Walz is in fact the only Democrat to win the seat since 1992. Before his 2007-2017 tenure and afterwards, it’s been in GOP hands.
Following his 2016 victory, Walz ran successfully for governor in 2018 and won reelection in 2022. Ahead of his second second term, Democrats won a two-vote Democratic majority in the state House and a one-vote majority in the Senate. That gave them a trifecta and full control of state government for the first time in a decade.
Walz and the legislature could have treated their narrow win as a narrow mandate. But instead of leading with timidity, they went big, pushing through a dizzying array of progressive legislation.
Here’s a MinnPost summary:
Democrats codified abortion rights, paid family and medical leave, sick leave, transgender rights protections, drivers licenses for undocumented residents, restoration of voting rights for people when they are released from prison or jail, wider voting access, one-time rebates, a tax credit aimed at low-income parents with kids, and a $1 billion investment in affordable housing including for rental assistance.
Also adopted were background checks for private gun transfers and a red-flag warning system to take guns from people deemed by a judge to be a threat to themselves or others. DFL lawmakers banned conversion therapy for LGBTQ people, legalized recreational marijuana, expanded education funding, required a carbon-free electric grid by 2040, adopted a new reading curricula based on phonics, passed a massive $2.58 billion capital construction package and, at the insistence of Republicans, a $300 million emergency infusion of money to nursing homes.
Paid family and medical leave! A ban on conversion therapy! A carbon-free electric grid by 2040! Legalized cannabis! All with a one-vote majority!
And this doesn’t even mention the main program Walz has been touting on his media hits — a universal free school meals program, which provides breakfast and lunch for all Minnesota students regardless of family income.
“The haves and have-nots in the school lunchroom is not a necessary thing,” Walz said when Republicans criticized the refusal to means test. “Just feed our children.”
As this suggests, Walz has a gift for the folksy framing of progressive policy as common-sense decency. In his round of VP media hits, he found a perfect way to frame Trump/Vance and MAGA: “These guys are just weird.”
The talking point that Republicans are “weird” or goofy has blown up; everyone from ex-Republican, conservative-leaning pundit Tom Nichols to AOC to Harris herself have embraced the messaging. (Watch Walz make the case for Republicans as “weird” below during his CNN hit last Sunday.)
Walz, in sum, is an electoral red district juggernaut, respected by colleagues, with a stunning record of progressive legislation and a powerful ability to promote Democratic ideas. He’s done a lot to build his own popularity and make himself a credible VP pick.
Progressives for Walz
Walz has also benefited, though, from a swift and unusually coordinated progressive effort to elevate him.
To be clear, Walz is popular within the party. However, many progressive pundits and activists with large platforms have been especially enthusiastic about his candidacy. Gun control proponent David Hogg has been promoting Walz relentlessly; so has left journalist Mehdi Hasan; so has YouTube influencer Kyle Kuczynski.
A big part of the reason the left has chosen Walz is because, from a progressive perspective, he’s better than the alternatives on offer.
A note from Aaron: Working with brilliant contributors like Noah requires resources. If you aren’t already a paid subscriber, please support PN by becoming one.
Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania and another leading VP contender, is a centrist with a number of policy positions that alienate progressives. He supports corporate tax cuts, is a strong advocate for school vouchers, and has been criticized for his handling of sexual harassment allegations involving an aid. He’s also drawn ire from some on the left for his comments on campus pro-Palestinian protests.
Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, the third name under consideration, also leans right in several respects. He initially opposed the pro-labor PRO Act, and while he’s reversed himself now that he’s in VP consideration, unions are still wary. He’s also been criticized for clapping during far right Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress last week.
For progressives, then, Walz is not so much the perfect candidate as he is the best option on offer. Walz hasn’t been a leading critic of US Israel policy, like Bernie Sanders, but he’s signaled support for a ceasefire. He’s not as far left on most other issues as Sanders either. But he’s got a solid history of progressive wins, and unlike Shapiro and Kelly, he’s not wobbly on labor.
Moving on from Sanders is good for the left and for Democrats
Sanders of course generated huge excitement among progressives with his runs for the Democratic nomination in 2016 and 2020. Jacobin, perhaps the most Sanders-pilled publication on the left, even published an op-ed last week recommending him as VP. That’s an extremely unlikely choice given that Sanders is now 82 and the Democratic party just dropped Joe Biden, who’s one year younger, as its candidate almost entirely because of his age.
Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, is popular with progressives in part because he ran as an anti-establishment figure; he promised to activate non-voters and he criticized corporate influence in both parties. But his two defeats showed how difficult it is to win a Democratic primary while running (in part) against the Democratic Party. And while Sanders has worked productively with Democratic colleagues throughout his long career in politics (he’s a personal friend of Joe Biden’s), his campaigns tended to emphasize and exacerbate center/left divisions in the party.
In settling on and boosting Walz, progressives are doing that thing they are often accused of refusing to do — making a pragmatic political decision to embrace the good rather than the perfect. They’re also pivoting away from an anti-establishment approach to presidential politics.
Walz does not, like Sanders, lambast the Democratic Party. He is a thoroughly establishment figure who has become famous in part for the way he unites Democrats against Republicans. He’s acceptable to the left but not exactly of the left. He’s a unity choice. And that may well make him appealing to Harris, who is relying on and building considerable momentum due to current Democratic unity.
Progressive support for Walz won’t necessarily make him VP. Shapiro is extremely popular in Pennsylvania, and Pennsylvania is likely the election’s tipping-point state. VP choices don’t usually provide much of a home state boost. But even a small Shapiro bounce could make a big difference in November.
The left’s choice for Walz, though, is in itself good news for progressives. Progressives don’t have to uncritically embrace the Democratic establishment. But if they’re going to have influence on Democratic electoral politics, and especially on Democratic presidential politics, they need to be pragmatic about choosing candidates who support progressive goals and who are acceptable to a broad Democratic coalition. Walz is one version of what that might look like. By elevating him now, progressives are helping him build momentum for a later presidential bid, whether or not he’s chosen as VP.
Progressive support for Walz is also good for Democrats as a whole. Walz-mentum is a signal that, despite serious and important arguments with the Democratic establishment, progressives can find people, candidates, and issues within the party that they support.
Walz, for the left, is a choice to work within the party rather than against it, at least where presidential politics are concerned. That’s in part been made possible by the remarkable unity Harris’s campaign has generated. And it’s also a hopeful indication of continued coordination across the broad anti-MAGA coalition in the months and years ahead.
Trump’s disastrous NABJ appearance
By Aaron Rupar
Donald Trump made a surprising choice Wednesday to appear in Chicago for a Q&A at the National Association of Black Journalists. It went far worse for him than anyone could’ve imagined.
The event began with ABC’s Rachel Scott reading Trump some of the racist comments he’s made over the years and asking him why Black voters should trust him now. Trump drew gasps when he responded by attacking Scott, saying “I don't think I've ever been asked a question in such a horrible manner."
Things got worse from there. The second question Trump fielded was about Kamala Harris, and Trump responded by rolling out Birtherism 2.0. Here’s a transcript of his answer (emphasis mine):
She was always of Indian heritage, and she was only promoting Indian heritage. I didn't know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black and now she wants to be known as Black. So I don't know — is she Indian or is she Black? I respect either one. But she obviously doesn't because she was Indian all the way and then all of the sudden made a turn and she went — she became a Black person.
Yikes! It was one disaster after the next.
Trump drew groans when he revealed he knew nothing about the Sonya Massey case and couldn’t explain why the cop who shot her should have immunity (as he insists all cops should have). He repeatedly disrespected Scott, calling her “this woman,” “rude,” and “nasty.” He was laughed at after he said he would pardon J6 insurrectionists who assaulted cops “if they’re innocent,” prompting Scott to point out that they’ve already been convicted. And he was abruptly yanked off the stage by his handlers after he admonished his audience of Black journalists to remember that migrants “are taking your jobs.”
I put together an 11-minute supercut of all the lowlights that you can watch below.
While it’s tempting to believe that there’s a method behind Trump’s madness, this seemed to me like little more than desperate flailing from a guy who thought the presidential election was in the bag two weeks ago but now feels it slipping away along with his polling lead.
Going up against a Black woman brings out the absolute worst in Trump. Hopefully Americans are smart enough this time to see his crude racism and misogyny for what it is. He’s certainly not disciplined enough to hide it.
That’s it for today
We’ll be back with more tomorrow. If you appreciate this post, please support Public Notice by signing up. Paid subscribers make this newsletter possible.
Thanks for reading.
Thank you for the Conference Video. Trump is Unhinged. Must be kept out of Washington DC unless it’s to attend his federal trials.
An observation and a request: This column identifies "progressive" with Bernie Sanders. It never mentions, e.g., Elizabeth Warren, whom I supported in the 2020 primary (and who is also my home state senior senator). This, unfortunately, is pretty typical of progressive-leaning male journalists and pundits. Sanders, like the New Left from which he came, is long on rhetoric and short on substance. (True, he seems to have done a good job as mayor of Brattleboro, Vermont, in the 1980s, but Brattleboro is a small, mostly white city with no need of a foreign policy.) What many of you all are missing is that "women's issues" -- i.e., women's perspectives on *all* issues -- don't fit neatly on the right-left continuum. Neither do the perspectives of people of color, among others. No surprise there: the right-left continuum is rooted in the political thinking of mostly white mostly men.
So, short version: "Progressive" is loosely defined these days, and seems to be claimed by, among others, liberals who see the liberal label as passé. It should absolutely include the likes of Elizabeth Warren and those of us who support her. It shouldn't be used as a synonym for "leftist," which comes from a male-dominated tradition and hasn't really tried to shake off the influence of its origins. You all can keep "leftist" but please be more careful with "progressive."