Skip to content

How much do Democratic politicians fear The Groups?

Lefty discourse has suddenly been filled with talk about The Groups—nonprofit organizations that apparently wield enormous veto power over Democratic politicians. Ezra Klein discussed this a couple of days ago with Michael Lind, starting off with an observation about routine opposition to big solar power projects from highly focused groups on the left:

KLEIN: When I would talk to the people working on it, I was just stunned by the power of small groups, environmental justice groups, and so on, that didn’t really represent anybody, or at least not any large numbers of people.

They would just explain to me that if you couldn’t get them on board, they couldn’t move forward with this at all. And I would say, “Well, what is the power of these groups — like, what is their leverage on you?” And there was never an answer. It was just a coalitional decision that had been made in the culture of the way the Democratic Party now made policy.

....A culture of how you make policy had emerged, a culture of who you listen to had emerged. And it couldn’t be broken, even if that meant a genuinely smaller chance of achieving a goal that you believed and had told everybody else was existentially important: the speed of decarbonization in the coming 10 years.

LIND: Well, it’s not new. Back in the 1990s, I was having a conversation with a Democratic staffer about some sensible educational reform — I don’t remember what it was — and he worked for Senator Ted Kennedy at the time. And he said, “Well, we’ll have to run it past the Groups.”

That was the first time I had heard of “the Groups” — clearly with a capital G.

So who are these Groups? In general they seem to fall into a few categories:

  • Black
  • Trans
  • Green
  • Environmental justice
  • Immigration
  • Gay
  • Indigenous

But which ones? Can we name names? My sense is that although this list includes some big, well-known groups—the ACLU, NAACP, NRDC, etc.—the bulk of The Groups are mostly smallish organizations that are, in practice, run by young staffers with an incentive to move steadily left and steadily more hardline.

But who are they? I don't think it's a secret; it's just that no one has ever bothered to make a list. But maybe it's time for someone to do this?

64 thoughts on “How much do Democratic politicians fear The Groups?

    1. wvmcl2

      Are you saying they are not?

      They certainly look like the future where I live, as they are in constant robust use and in fact are becoming over-congested.

      Is your future a world made just for cars? I think that was around 1955.

      1. Jimmy7

        Do you live in Holland? If not, I’m calling bullshit. I’ve never seen a downtown bike lane that averaged 60 users an hour or a suburban one that had more than 100 in a day during the week. Recreational use doesn’t count.

        1. lawnorder

          Use is use, recreational or otherwise. In any case, how can you tell the difference between a cyclist just out for a ride and a cyclist riding with a purpose?

        2. emjayay

          So, you've never been in Manhattan or probably other US cities? Never been in Munich or Berlin or any other non-Netherlands cities and countries?

        3. Jasper_in_Boston

          If not, I’m calling bullshit. I’ve never seen a downtown bike lane that averaged 60 users an hour

          Jimmy, you gotta get out of exurban Kansas City a bit more frequently.

    2. Crissa

      Ahh, yes, because you're unaware that protected bike lanes are where you find the non-spandex riders? And can be used by any type of micromobility from scooters to class 2 (throttle only) and powered wheelshairs?

      Gee, it's almost like you want to make sure there are none.

      https://youtu.be/M8F5hXqS-Ac

  1. DarkBrandon

    This may be news to some, but most liberals and progressives won't even reduce their flying to reduce demand, or approve of denser development anywhere near them, or freakin' quit Twitter in under 2 years.

    They'll sit around reposting Ron Filipkowski tweets and calling themselves "tEh ReSisTaNcE" - you know, like the original members of the French Resistance, who wore t-shirts and other merch with "RESISTANCE" on them in bold - but actual action and sacrifice is not a thing.

      1. DarkBrandon

        Nice diversion.

        As your remark illustrates, one has to choose one's words very carefully when expressing dissent within the left.

  2. Mitch Guthman

    There are some contextually interesting words being spoken in this "conversation". What exactly was the "sensible" policy that Lind was so unhappy wasn't being pursued? And would most Democrats who aren't aspiring beltway pundits agree that it's sensible?

    It seems to me that what's missing here is an appreciation that an apparently self- congratulatory discussion between two aspiring beltway pundits about how the Democratic Party listens to the wrong people instead of to them and the ideas that seen brilliant to them might be wrong on the merits of those ideas. I basically can't see elevating their judgment above that of groups that are concerned about particular issues. I think we need to look at the merits instead.

    1. ColBatGuano

      Thank you. These discussions on how the left has forced Dems to take terrible policy positions always exclude what the terrible positions actually are.

        1. Coby Beck

          It also was not taken up as a policy by anyone.

          And it is also just a bad slogan for a completely defensible idea: stop using the police for domestic disputes, mental health interventions, ticket writing, etc.

  3. RobS

    I think this is convenient excuse, and it hides a more fundamental problem with a lot of the people at the high levels of Democratic politics: they are generally unwilling to advocate or argue persuasively for anything "controversial" or do anything with downsides. It's a kind of ingrained small-c conservative temperament and a discomfort with accepting responsibility or risk. Because you can tell a similar story about tons of other things Democrats just won't do or try: if something doesn't have majority support, they often will dismiss the possibility of doing it as unpopular (that's not crazy, but in reality, effective political parties do some stuff that is unpopular or persuade people to change their minds). If a particular line of attack or advocacy won't succeed with certainty in the short-term, then it's "foolish" and "naive" so they don't do it. Similarly, very often when they're engaging with the media, they let the media manipulate them and they respond with the message the media wants; they don't try to actively manipulate the media or really get their own message out (as any competent political party would).

    So, maybe they do let small Groups boss them around, but it's because they let almost everyone do that. And the idea that "big trans" has more sway over them than others is very silly; tons and tons of groups and entities have massive sway over them, but the only ones that get discussed are the ones that they have some comfort criticizing (usually because it lets them be "moderate" and "reasonable").

    1. jeffreycmcmahon

      Exactly, the interests that have heavy sway are the major corporate donors and organizations like AIPAC and the like, which are conveniently not included in these gripes.

      To address your other points, it's a dynamic that Drum vaguely got at in his other post about reactionary attitudes: Republican policies are usually bad, but people are accustomed to them, so therefore they seem a lot less risky than the more unusual Democratic policies that may not have been tried in the past, so there's an inherently conservative fear of going out on an untested electoral limb.

  4. royko

    I also really want to hear specifically which groups blocked which policies before accepting Ezra's perspective here. No, I don't think he would outright lie. But yes, I do think he looks for the narratives he wants to see. And this particular critique (Democrats beholden to "special interests") has been around my entire life, sometimes valid, sometimes not, but rarely with actual details on which special interests are blocking what.

    Anyway, he's a journalist. If he has a hot story on the Democratic Party being hamstrung by small Groups, he should report it, not BS about it in generalities on his podcast. This is a big part of why our journalism is letting us down.

  5. tango

    Thanks Kevin, I had never before heard of The Groups as a proper noun, but it makes a bit of sense now that I reflect. And now that I think about it, it does reduce the range of motion of the Democratic Party, and I have seen it before especially on ecological/development issues.

    Frankly, if one is to break their influence, one would need some sort of Trump-like Democrat figure (only not as awful as Trump) who has the power to blow past some of these institutions.

    Which made me think... maybe 25 years ago, it was unclear if Trump was a Dem or Rep, and he is not a man of particular principals. Imagine an alternate world where Trump went Dem and he remade the Dems in this sort of populist manner...

    1. SeanT

      does it make sense tho?
      I know a number of people who have worked as staffers on the Hill over the years.
      They are not listening to the NRDC or ACLU

    2. jeffreycmcmahon

      First of all, it's only been a proper noun for a week, so maybe don't get onboard this particular train quite yet.

      Second, Trump could have never remade the Democratic party, because his racism and misogyny are too fundamental to his worldview.

  6. scf

    I can speak to my experience with this as an employee of a major renewable power developer. When the Democrats hatched the "Green New Deal," they had clearly talked to labor, environmental groups, and environmental justice groups. They did not consult the industry that would actually be building the green projects. We had virtually no input. This is the case again and again at the state level, where well-meaning policymakers announce this policy or that policy aimed at, theoretically, promoting green energy, but they do not first engage with the people who actually build the projects to see if said policy will actually accelerate the clean energy transition.

    Why? Two reasons, I think. First, while Democrats seem to love big tech and big banks, they don't engage well with business concerns. I also once worked on homelessness and helped put together a "summit" on the topic for a former Democratic California governor. We had all sorts of advocacy groups EXCEPT contractors who would, you know, actually build the housing. Second, the green power industry, NextEra excepted, is not good at political donations. Labor, civil rights groups and ENGOs, on the other hand, are the main source of Democratic donations. So, obviously, that is who they cater to and who they listen to. One reason the green power industry is so bad at political giving is that many have European parent companies who recoil from what they see as the corruptness of the American political system.

    1. SeanT

      Nonsense
      I have friends in the renewable industry, and they had audience with Granholm, members of Congress, Podesta, Kerry and others when all of this was being conceived of.
      Maybe they didn't listen, but their voices were there. Seems you are salty YOUR voice was not there...

      1. scf

        I was there with other members of the American Clean Power Association in meetings on the Hill, and we were heard primarily after the fact, and our ideas to improve the concept were generally unheeded. Democrats could literally not understand how the green industry, labor and enviros coud not be completely in alignment, and when we weren't they sided with labor and the ENGOs. One reason we did not really get the Green New Deal off the ground. Klein, Lind and Drum are highlighting a real issue. Feel free to ignore it.

    2. Austin

      “First, while Democrats seem to love big tech and big banks, they don't engage well with business concerns.”

      As if Republicans engage well with business concerns. There are very few companies who want to see massive tariffs implemented, and very few employers who want all the undocumented workers deported, yet both are now on the national agenda.

    3. Citizen99

      I can shed some light on all this, being a member of a "Group" myself, working in the climate change area. My "Group" is Citizens' Climate Lobby, which advocates for legislation that will accelerate the reduction of emissions. We are non-partisan, and thus force ourselves to focus on things that can actually pass Congress. Direct lobbying, no chanting or marching. Does that sound hard? Hell, yeah.

      Several times in the last 12 years we have pushed for legislation that was opposed by others in the environmental movement writ large. In some cases, they drafted letters that they sent to members of Congress signed by something like 250 "Groups." Wow, that's a lot of "Groups." Some of them even had more than a handful of members! Their letters do not propose anything of substance, only angry rants against legislation they don't like because it's not pure enough.

      That takes me to the Green New Deal. That was NOT, as many people have been led to believe, legislation. It was a resolution, which means it was just a statement -- a manifesto, if you will. If the Green New Deal magically passed both houses of Congress, here is what would then happen: nothing.

      Of course, many hundreds of The Groups supported the Green New Deal. It was an especially potent pitch to young people, so much so that they held a sit-in outside the office of Mitch McConnell's . . . oh, wait, no . . . I got that wrong . . . outside the office of NANCY PELOSI. Right, they were pleading with Nancy Pelosi to "pass the Green New Deal." Pleeeze! No, they didn't put pressure on the lawmakers who OPPOSED all climate legislation, but on those who SUPPORTED it. Because . . . who knows?

      Anyway, there are Groups and there are Groups. Some Groups, like ours, work directly with lawmakers and experts and influencers (the old-fashioned kind) to get positive legislation through the DC meat grinder. But the ones Dem lawmakers are afraid of are the ones who make signs, and march, and chant, and attract the TV cameras. That's what leads to primary challenges.

  7. bharshaw

    Back in the day Kenneth Galbraith wrote a book about the influence of groups--Big Labor (AFL-CIO), Big Business (NAM, Chamber of Commerce), Big Agriculture (Farm Bureau, National Farmers Org), which required Big Government to mediate and coordinate. Throw in some other groups--AMA, ABA, American Legion, which were conservative. Robert Putnam highlighted the civic organizations: Knights of Columbus, Rotary, Elks. Less discussed were urban machines, notably Tammany Hall in NYC. And don't forget the ethnics-the Italians, Irish, Poles, etc.

    Those orgs could claim to represent millions of citizens. Since the 1960s such organizations have lost clout and members; some have moved left. A few organizations developed since--NRA being one, but I think they are smaller and more niche.

    Perhaps the way Democrats deal with groups is a relic from the old days. Or perhaps it just seems so, given the success of our home-grown demagogue with his more direct appeal to people through his rallies and free media.

  8. FrankM

    Oh, please. The Groups is just another name for the various factions that make up the coalition that is the Democratic party. You could just as easily make up a list of The Groups that make up the Republican Party. There's nothing wrong or even new about this. I'm so tired of this shit.

    1. megarajusticemachine

      This, this whole discussion fairly stupid and attempting to "other" and divide the party. Supporting one "group" when they stand up for their own rights as human beings is not being controlled by some mysterious Group, but clearly if we've lost you get to point the finger at "others" and scapegoat them.

  9. Doctor Jay

    Let's refocus this conversation, which is entirely too abstract.

    Let's imagine a Bill Clinton like effort to take away the immigration issue from Republicans. Propose your own immigration reform. Double the size of immigration courts, maybe triple it. Spend money to speed up the due process that an asylum seeker is entitled to, and show them the door when they are faking it.

    While you're at it, throw in measures to crack down on the employment of illegal immigrants. This is not what I'd call good policy, it's there to make Republicans and business owners nervous.

    Ok, so why hasn't someone done this? It might be because it would offend some members of the Democratic coalition. Democrats are organized not by identity, but by purpose, and this whole program might seem suspicious to them.

    Another thing I thought might be fun, would be to offer a bounty for illegal votes. Again, this could offend constituencies. So you would have to get them on board. That's not going to be easy, in all likelihood. Trust takes time.

    1. JohnH

      Oh, please. Now,t he thing I hate most about the pundit solutions, always emphasizing the right-center on social issues, is that it just takes for granted that, whatever the pundit believes, the American voter does, too. It also believes that the right won't demonize you anyway.

      But another thing is the belief that something was neglected at all. The Dems DID have an immigration proposal that Clinton himself probably supported, and it was shot down by Republicans in Congress. All the GOP ever had was (1) a few slogans that never were meant to be enacted, like the wall, because they signaled "we're the toughest assholes" and (2) the goal in the first place of not succeeding, to make government ineffective and then run against the party of government.

      1. Doctor Jay

        Yes. And no.

        Biden did not run on this. Harris did not run on this. Hillary did not run on this. That's what I'm talking about.

        I'm talking about rhetoric of the form, "My plan is better than Trump's in every way. It's more effective, and it's fairer, too." Harris was defensive about it. Your argument is defensive. (yes, it is also true!) It makes Trump look powerful. We needed to make him look weak.

        1. Crissa

          Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it wasn't campaigned upon.

          You just suggested what her actual campaign speeches in Arizona was about.

    2. Crissa

      Weird, it's like you didn't bother reading any of the proposals Biden or Obama put in front of Congress but think you thought it up yourself.

  10. Lounsbury

    Given the current US Left domination by heavily academic modes that the university graduate online dominating activists have, there is little sense in such as any listing will in good university lounge fashion be nit picked and quibbled into paralysis, with sterile and arch parsing as a mode to deny error

  11. jeffreycmcmahon

    Maybe nobody has made up "a list" because this is a concept that was just invented in the last week in order to find scapegoats.

    1. megarajusticemachine

      Coming up next: Which "Group" can we throw to the wolves of the right wing to try and win again? Can we ignore Black Voters to reconcile with the KKK?

    2. Jasper_in_Boston

      People have been talking about "The Groups" (noisy left-progressive interest groups that kill needed changes, or pressure Democrats into taking politically damaging positions) as a concept for several years now, at minimum. Perhaps the people employing the concept are wrong (could be!) but it's definitely not an idea that was hatched last week.

  12. D_Ohrk_E1

    Does it really matter?

    Unlike the GOP, Democrats are a coalition of groups so they naturally have to seek unity/buy-in from all parts of the coalition. It's this lack of unity/buy-in on Gaza that caused a rift which did not close let alone heal before the general election.

  13. spatrick

    I'm of the opinion that it's high time some of these "groups" get called out or have their bluffs called because its obvious they only people they really represent are their funders, staffers and perhaps an outdated mailing list. Immigration is the biggest example of this because while the Biden Administration wanted to change the more odious parts of Trump's immigration policy in 2021 they did not enact the measures they did in 2024 - which did help reduce border crossings - for fear of alienating those same "groups". This they didn't realize until it was too late many Latinos regarded a chaotic border situation as bad as many whites.

    However, there is some truth to what Mitch says that pundit self-interest for their own careers is often not taken into account. Ultimately what say or their predictive "track record" should also be scrutinized in the same fashion.

  14. RobS

    So, as I've read the piece, it seems to have some pretty obvious flaws. For example: "beginning in the ’60s and ’70s — I won’t name names — but the way you become a spokesperson for women or L.G.B.T.Q. or African Americans or Hispanics is not having this mass organization behind you of members." Is this true? To use an example I'm a little familiar with, I think a lot of Democratic politicians look to the Human Rights Campaign as one of the main "spokespeople" for the LGBTQ+ community; that's certainly how the Obama Administration treated them, and HRC actually tended to provide Obama cover when he wasn't as progressive on these issues as a lot of people wanted. It has over 3 million members and supporters. Now, I have a bunch of critiques of the Human Rights Campaign, but it's pretty much the version of a mass organization that is also establishment friendly that one would expect for queer people. And that's not an insignificant number of people. Maybe things have changed recently, but even in the recent past, Democrats were often concerned with whether groups really had buy-in from the broader community.

Comments are closed.