To say the party is “moving left” is basically true, but too simplistic. The Trump presidency is pushing Democrats toward a new kind of clarity — but they’re still arguing over what form it will take.

On the minimum wage, Democrats have been steadily upping their demands in the past few years, as Republican resistance to any increase has hardened. It started at $9, then became $10.10, then $12. At the start of the 2016 campaign, Bernie Sanders supported $15, and Hillary Clinton supported $12, but by the end of the race, she was on board with $15 as well (albeit with some caveats). The bill Democrats are now rallying behind would raise it gradually to $15 by 2024, then index it to inflation.

AD

AD

There are a number of ways to interpret this evolution. One is that Democratic politicians are realizing that this is what their voters want. Another is that they’re being pulled to the left by Sanders and his supporters. Another is that they’re realizing that a more robust emphasis on inequality is critical to them winning back the White House. All of which might contain some truth. But they also may be realizing that they need to stop worrying so much about the details — at least when it comes to what they present to the public — and paint in some broad strokes. Instead of agonizing about whether $14 or $15 might maximize income gains while minimizing job losses, they’re just saying: “$15 is what people like? Fine, we’ll go with $15.”

Democrats are never going to stop being concerned about what works — they’re the party of government, after all — but the election of 2016 was the ultimate test of whether they could win by showing that they cared about getting policy right. As Clinton said in her speech at the Democratic convention, “I sweat the details of policy, whether we’re talking about the exact level of lead in the drinking water in Flint, Mich., the number of mental-health facilities in Iowa or the cost of your prescription drugs. Because it’s not just a detail if it’s your kid, if it’s your family. It’s a big deal. And it should be a big deal to your president, too.”

Most Democrats agree with that as a substantive matter. But as a political matter, it has some problems, as Clinton could tell you. “This is a complicated issue, so here’s my complicated proposal” doesn’t help anyone if it means that Donald Trump becomes president.

AD

AD

So Democrats now seem to be thinking more about a division between the front end and back end of what they’re presenting to the public. You can think about it as the difference between the interface and the underlying code, or the maitre d’ and the chef. The party has been dominated by the people who sweat the details, which is how you sometimes get losing candidates such as Clinton, John Kerry or Al Gore, who know a lot about politics and governing but aren’t very good politicians. Every once in a while, you find someone who cares a lot about policy and is also charismatic — Bill Clinton, Barack Obama — but those people are rare. And right along with that problem you have the problem of uncharismatic policies.

For instance, the Affordable Care Act is an uncharismatic policy that is meant to solve an intricate, interlocking series of problems in the American health-care system. But you know what is a charismatic policy? Single-payer health care. It’s easy to understand, and it promises terrific benefits. And right now, there’s an argument brewing between leftists who want the party to stand firmly for single-payer, and liberals who support it in principle but worry about the political and practical difficulties of getting there. To those liberals, the leftists respond: “We need to aim high, speak in broad strokes and not get bogged down by self-imposed constraints about the possible.”

The truth is, we don’t know how the public would respond to a presidential candidate advocating single-payer. Sanders advocated it, but he never got attacked with the full force of the Republican propaganda machine, which is capable of some pretty impressive stuff (you might recall that along with the enthusiastic help of the news media, it turned Clinton into history’s greatest monster because she used the wrong email account). Maybe the policy is charismatic enough to survive that, or maybe not. But we might find out in 2020, or perhaps in 2024.

AD

AD

What we can say is that there will almost certainly be other issues on which Democrats will discard their previous “It’s complicated” position for ones that take a firm, clear stance and leave the compromises and complications until after the election. For instance, you’ll probably see candidates coming out in favor of marijuana legalization, instead of saying “Let’s see how it works at the state level for a while” (which was Clinton’s position). That new clarity could come out in a lot of different ways, but it won’t necessarily be because they want to move left so much as they want to offer voters an unambiguous choice.

Of course, Democrats will always disagree over the details, but it’s clear what has to happen now: They all have to agree that they need to offer a crisp, clear vision to the voters about what it will be like if they give Democrats power. Clinton, who got too bogged down herself in the details in 2016, today gave a speech in which she hinted at this growing recognition.