You know those yard signs, the ones that say "In This House, We Believe..." And what follows is like this list, in a variety of fonts, with the last ten years of slogans that have become canon in the Democratic Party. Black Lives Matter. No Human is Illegal. Women's Rights are Human Rights.

And what that yard sign is saying is it's saying, don't bother approaching my house unless you already agree with me on this litany of issues.

Today's guest is a Democrat who has worked for Democratic lawmakers, who has politicos arguing about the role of identity politics in the party.

Now, I might personally agree with everything on that yard sign, as a college educated liberal, myself. But if I'm doing politics, my goal is to bring in people who don't agree on all of those things and try to persuade them or at least find common ground on the things we do agree on.

'Adam Jentleson is taking a bunch of heat right now for an-op ed saying Democrats need to ditch the "magical thinking" and say no to "The Groups" on its left flank. So how would that work, exactly? I'm Audie Cornish, and this is The Assignment.

I first met Adam when I was covering Congress, and he was working for the late Harry Reid, the powerful Nevada Democrat who helped President Obama pass Obamacare. More recently, Jentleson was chief of staff for Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman. Anyway, so about his op ed, which appeared in The New York Times, it was called "When Will Democrats Learn to Say No?" Adam Jentleson, welcome to The Assignment.

Thank you. It's great to be here.

So first, just talk to me about this idea of "no." Who do Democrats need to say no to? Especially thinking about this context going forward where they are not the party in power?

Democrats need to get better at saying no to nonprofit interest groups who have these maximalist strategies for the issues they advocate for and push Democrats to take positions that are quite unpopular and often don't even serve the interests of the people these groups claim to advocate for. And what's happened is that this massive constellation of groups has grown by leaps and bounds in the last 10 to 20 years. There's a lot of reasons why I related to Supreme Court decisions and dark money and all this stuff that I won't get into.

And professional activism, right? There's like more people doing the work of activism.

That's right. There's there's a whole cottage industry of professional activism, what I call the nonprofit industrial complex, which is largely populated by college educated people like myself who aren't necessarily in touch with the communities that they claim to represent. And these groups tend to be based in Washington, D.C. or New York City. Their funders tend to live in what we call the Acela corridor, which is D.C. To New York to Boston, and they don't have major presences on the ground in general. I'm speaking from you.

Also accuse them of having magical thinking.

That's correct.

Which as I was reading it, it seem you were saying that as single issue voters, they're so focused on the thing they want to happen that they're willing to forego a certain pragmatism that would be involved to make that happen.

That's right. Politics is hard. You know, people often call it the slow boring of hard boards. And that's what it is. Making change within our system is a really difficult thing to do, and it takes a lot of time and sustained effort and it requires a lot of compromise. And that is something that these groups don't tend to advocate for.

Something kind of accused them of not being real in a way, like that they don't really represent voters.

That's right. And I'll give you an example there. You know, an issue that has been an incredibly important hot button issue, immigration. A lot of the groups that pushed Democrats on immigration pushed them to take positions ostensibly on behalf of immigrant and, you know, in America, predominantly Latino communities. And those positions that they advocate for are very liberal things like decriminalizing border crossings, which.

Right. Or for a while it was "Abolish ICE."

'Abolish ICE, decriminalize the border. These were issues that all the Democrats running for president in 2020 were pushed by the groups to take. And most of them did take these positions. And ostensibly, that's being done on behalf of Latino people and immigrants. Now, what we've learned over the last couple of cycles is that most Latino people don't agree with that position. Polls consistently show that 65, 70% of Latino people want tough border enforcement. Now, there's all sorts of sociological reasons for that that I'm not equipped to get into for why those shifts in public opinion have happened. But what I do know is that they have happened and we have seen Democrats lose not just white working class voters over their liberal immigration stances. We have seen them in this cycle lose nonwhite working class voters over their immigration stance. And I specifically mean Latinos and African-Americans. Those populations broke away from Democrats and voted for Trump in numbers we have not seen in decades in this election.

Adam, I feel like what it is people are hearing you say, and what I feel like I'm hearing you say, is something I'm hearing in other quarters of the party. Elissa Slotkin, who is a lawmaker, said this, that identity politics needs to go and that the Democratic Party's, sort of, adherence to identity politics. Appealing to all these different constituencies needs to go. Can you explain what you mean by that? Because there's like nothing to stop a campaign from saying, Hey, we did the research ourselves, and Latinos here don't care about that. We're going to do this other thing. Like, no one's making people, like, fill out questionnaires and, like, to sign these pledges and things like what is well, what is it that you're saying need to change?

Nobody is forcing them to do it. But I think it's difficult to overstate the amount of pressure that Democratic lawmakers and candidates feel from these groups. And that has partially been because they think that these groups have the power to bring grassroots opposition against them if they violate the positions that the groups are asking them to take or run ads against them. Some of these groups have multimillion dollar ad budgets. But something that we've seen recently is that that threat is much more abstract than real, that most of these groups don't have major grassroots presences. These are often what we call grass tops organizations. They don't have any real membership. They don't have people in the states and they can't really turn out people to vote or to volunteer. The problem is twofold. The problem is that they're not driven by a desire for Democrats to win. They are driven by wanting to advance their pet issue. And so winning, having Democrats win elected office is at best secondary to what these groups are trying to do. So they might be telling you their issue is popular, but the basis are these issue polls sponsored by their groups, which I do not think are particularly credible. And I say that from having commissioned some of them myself and seeing how this process works. And so the basis for them being party is relatively thin to begin with. So, you know, if you're a campaign, you should take their advice with a grain of salt because they're advocating for their interest, not for your desire to win an election.

Can you talk to me how this idea of them imposing their vocabulary and kind of social rules plays into what you're saying?

That's right. I talk in the piece about how a lot of times what happens is these issues come packaged in the vocabulary of college educated elites. It's a rigidity and an intolerance for people who have points of view that violate what college educated people consider to be core ideological tenants, something I always come back to.

And moral ones.

Moral ones.

When you think about social justice issues.

Absolutely. And I'm not advocating for people to change their own moral tenants. But I come back to this idea, those yard signs you see everywhere that say in this house, we believe this and this and this and this. Right? And when you're talking about politics, politics is about building bigger coalitions. And what that yard sign is saying is it's saying, don't bother approaching my house unless you already agree with me on this litany of issues. Now, I might personally agree with everything on that yard sign as a college educated liberal myself, but if I'm doing politics, my goal is to bring in people who don't agree on all of those things and try to persuade them or at least find common ground on the things we do agree on.

And it sounds like you're talking about white people when you say this.

Eh.

Do you mean across the board with the educational divide, or who are you talking about? I certainly one thing I thought about in terms of language sometimes is I'm like, I don't want to be the last person saying Negro. You know what I mean? Like, there are certain things I'm fine to pay the social costs for it not to happen anymore. And I think sometimes when people hear the argument you're making, it sounds like a white centrist Democratic Party is saying, you know what? That's enough of that. That's enough of all your little words for yourselves. Cut it out. Something, something. Factories like that's like how people hear it.

'It's funny you raised the language issue because, you know, a prominent example of this is the word "Latinx." Right. And that is a word that was ostensibly invented on behalf of Latino people that no Latino people use. And I go back here to now Senator-elect Ruben Gallego, who just won a very close election in Arizona, who's a working class. He comes from a working class family, a Hispanic guy. And when people started using that term a few years ago, he put out a tweet where he said, I'm a Latino man from a working-class community. Literally nobody I know uses that word. And I have banned my staff from ever using it. And I think a lot of these language games are things that are sort of over-corrections. And, you know, we could go on and on about how people are focusing more on changing language without changing structural inequalities and actually advocating for redistributive economic policies. I personally believe that we should put a lot more focus on actually ending structural racism and advocate for redistributive economic policies than we should on language. But language is something that's easy, and language is something that college educated people can sort of focus on. And maybe they are more interested in focusing on language than actually paying slightly higher taxes, so that we can have a bigger social safety net.

Are there particular groups you'd like to back off? You mentioned immigration, and there are other groups that you sort of when you think back to the times you're sitting around the table that you thought, listen, you're not in the business of winning. I am.

'So, you know, this is probably going to piss off a lot of your listeners. But I will say climate change. Climate change is an issue that is critically important, but there is a massive disconnect between how important college educated people think climate change is and non-college educated people think climate change is. And it's really important to remember that most Americans do not have a college degree. And that includes most voters. And so when there's a. And then on top of that, most college educated voters are already voting Democratic. So my stance is that we should win elections and win power so that we can actually do something about climate change.

By not talking about climate change, or how are you thinking about this?

'You don't have to. Well, I think just if you have a position--

'Or, just not letting those groups--

Not letting those groups impose a certain vocabulary. I think you can talk about climate change in a way that emphasizes the need for growth, the need for clean energy, the need for jobs. But probably since it's not an issue that resonates with a large number of voters, especially the swing voters who are going to decide an election, it would be your preference to not talk about that and instead focus on things like protecting Social Security, lowering health care costs, raising wages. There are sort of a core basket of issues that have always done well for Democrats, not just in individual issue polls, but over decades. And my recommendation is for Democrats to sort of strip their messaging down to the studs and refocus on those core issues that are core liberal values, things we really believe in, and things that help millions of people and try to talk about those things all the time, as much as possible. And don't get put off your game and talk about things that aren't popular and under pressure from the groups, which is what happens with a lot of frequency.

So for you Green New Deal out?

It's I would love to win enough power to enact something like that.

But talking about it, like giving it.

But I wouldn't talk about it on the campaign trail. No, that's right.

Yeah.

Yeah. 100%. And so I think we need to be skeptical of things that aren't core values. Go back to the classics is what I'm advocating for. And it doesn't mean don't advocate for these things once you're in power. We should protect these things. We should protect vulnerable people. We should do the things that we as Democrats care about. But when you are talking narrowly about the business of winning elections, I think we need to get much more realistic about how we approach this and understand that the groups aren't out to help Democrats win necessarily. They're out to advance their pet issues and winning come secondary to them. So we shouldn't be listening to them about how to win elections.

I'm speaking with Adam Jentleson, former high ranking Senate staffer for Harry Reid and John Fetterman. We'll have more in a moment.

Some people are wondering if Democrats are now arguing, look, the ad that said Harris is for they/them, Trump is for you. That all Democrats have to do is somehow come up with something just as pithy and short. And that will solve everything. And I am kind of curious about like, is that what you think this is headed?

The reason that ad was effective was not just transphobia, although obviously that was a factor. But the reason that ad was so effective was that it played off a preexisting feeling among voters that was already present, that Democrats aren't advocating for the things that keep them up at night, like rising prices. And that exists because of a lot of the issues we're discussing here, because Democrats use a vocabulary that doesn't resonate with people, because Democrats.

'But it's not just I mean, what you're saying is use a vocabulary, right? In this case, gender pronouns. Right in the kind of conflict we have about talking about that publicly and the role it has in our culture, but also representing those people and their interests, Right. Whether it be trans or other people who consider themselves non-binary. I mean, what I hear you saying is. The they/them was also meaning, oh and you represent those other people, that other group. It's not just about the word.

It's that people feel like you can't have a conversation with Democrats without getting scolded or yelled at or called transphobic or racist or homophobic or what have you. And I think if we all take a minute and reflect, I think we think we can see that there's some truth to that. And so it's.

What's it been like trying to get people to reflect? Because I see people going after you pretty tough online. They're like digging through your Venmo. It's getting dark out there.

Yeah, tell me about it. I had to go private on my way over here. I think that actually points to the massive disconnect that exists between social media and the real world. Because when I log on to Twitter, I see a lot of people yelling at me. When I go in my conversations, you know, outside of that, people overwhelmingly agree with me. And I think there's a massive disconnect. And there's this saying that Twitter isn't real life and that is nothing could be more true than that.

Yeah. Certainly not anymore.

That's right. And I really want to focus on this because I don't think people understand how important it is to be able to get in the room with people who disagree with you and persuade them on something like trans rights. I don't think the Democrats should in any way stand down. But if you talk to a lot of trans activists, what they say is we just want people to stop talking about us because we don't want people to take away our health care. We don't want people to take away gender affirming care. We don't want people to pass bathroom bills. And frankly.

I hear a "but" coming. So then what's the problem?

We don't even care that much about the issue of of sports. They just want to stay out of the limelight so that people don't take away critical things like health care. And so the problem is when you have Democratic advocacy groups who go out of their way to elevate the issue into the public discussion where it didn't previously exist. And then on top of that, do so in an incredibly niche way on an obscure issue that affects a tiny number of people, like the question of gender affirming surgeries for prisoners. You know, that is that is a purity test that is not being done.

Which came up on an ACLU questionnaire that Kamala Harris filled out.

Correct. That's what the ACLU did. The ACLU did that to Harris in 2019, and that was a cycle ago, but positions taken last cycle are completely fair game, and it is impossible to argue that trans people are better off now because Donald Trump won. The ACLU questionnaire gave Trump a massive tool to use against Kamala Harris. The net effect of that political effort was to help Trump win. And now trans people in America are much worse off because Trump won, because Harris was pressed on an incredibly niche issue that affects a tiny, vanishingly small number of people. And I will also say when she was asked this question, current law in California provided gender affirming care to prisoners. So the ACLU went out of its way to elevate an issue into the public debate, not even to advocate for a change in the law. They were asking, will you use your executive authority to, like, double down on this? I don't even understand what the point of that was. But the real point was a purity test and say, can you prove that you are so pure in this issue that you will take this this fringe position? And now trans people are worse off because Trump was able to use that to great effect in the election. And that's where I think the groups are making a major mistake. And that doesn't help the people they claim to fight for. It has put the people they claim to fight for who are extremely vulnerable under a Trump administration under threat.

Going forward, do you expect more candidates to break with whatever the party orthodoxy is? You worked for John Fetterman. I think he's a great example of a senator who doesn't always appease everyone in the Democratic Party coalition.

I think it would be wise for Democrats to do that.

How hard is it because I mentioned Senator Manchin earlier and Kyrsten Sinema. They ain't in the Senate anymore.

Well, Joe Manchin.

I mean, lots of different things. But I'm just saying, like the number of people who consider themselves like, I'm going to vote different ways, I'm super bipartisan. That is just like a small number. Now, like that's not the political environment that we're in for Democrats or Republicans. So what does it mean for a party who is not in power to go forward in this environment? Right. Where they're frankly trying to say no and oppose a lot of things? How do they think about the things you're talking about? Right. Like, who are you saying no to? What are you voting for, even though it will anger people in the coalition?

I think they should just clear the decks. Start from scratch and say, what do I need to do to win in my district, in my state or nationally?

So you're tearing up questionnaires.

You are not yet. If there are candidates or staffers listening, I would say, say no to all questionnaires. Just don't bother. Right. A lot of times what what people what senators will do is the groups are pressuring them to take an issue, take a stance on an issue. And so they'll say, fine, you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to write a statement. I'm going to put it on my website. I'm not even going to send it to press. But this will appease the groups to have this on my website. And let's just do it, have staff, write it up, whatever the problem is. That's the first place your opponents go to mine for material. They go and look at the questionnaires you filled out. They go and look at your issue pages. And so I would say strip those down to the bones. Focus on core issues that Democrats advocate for. And in all of your public communications, you should focus on that. Now, naturally, you know, you're going to have to deal with other issues. But in terms of what you decide to affirmatively put out into the public debate, you should focus on the classics. You should focus on core issues, not just to poll well every once in a while. But that have worked for Democrats over decades and which represent core liberal values, which expand the social safety net, which protect vulnerable people and want to redistribute wealth.

'But, what is the cost of, quote unquote, resetting those relationships with the people who consider themselves the footsoldiers of your party? And is there something you look at on the Republican side and see works better? Like I think about abortion rights, anti-abortion activists on the right.

'I was just going to say. Yeah. You know, and I - on the way over here, I was reading a story about how all of the anti-abortion activists on the right have just completely let Trump off the hook for him moving to the left on abortion. You know, and so that side is a lot more transactional than our side is. And I'm just going to advocate for a more transactional form of politics here because I think that's that's what we need. And that, you know, may sound cynical, but the role of a party is to win. And the role of politicians is to win elections. And I think that is the moral imperative, because when we lose elections, the people that we claim to fight for are worse off. It is, I think, less ethical or moral to take a position that makes you feel better as an activist or as a staffer and that leads to a Democrat losing an election, which then leads to people suffering because their Medicaid gets slashed or their health care gets taken away or their food stamps get cut. But the staffers feel better about themselves because they feel morally pure. I think that is a moral failure. And I think that the most important thing in politics is to win so that we can change policy and help the people that we claim to champion.

As you think about going forward. What are going to be the difficulties of breaking orthodoxy, of doing all this when you're also in the midst of running basically a kind of opposition, right? You're running against the incoming president and his agenda and having that opposition as is sort of important right to the party. What does that mean for people who maybe decide to take unpopular stances, right?

Well, there's not a lot that's good about being in the minority. But one of the good things, if there's any silver lining, is that it gives you a little bit of time and space to reorient yourselves and reset the strategy a little bit. And going back to Democrats under Bush, you know, this is part of what we saw and all the attention is on Republicans and what they're doing. We've seen that to a great extent already with Trump as he, you know, sucks up all the oxygen in the room with all the crazy stuff he's doing. And so that creates a little space for Democrats to sort of step back and say, what do we need to do here? How do we need to reset as a party? And in 2005, you know, they did that successfully. They successfully blocked Bush's push to privatize Social Security. And then they, you know, focused on a very narrow set of issues in the 2006 midterms, what they called "Six for '06." There was a core set of policies exactly like what I'm advocating for. And then they completely shot the lights out in the 2006 midterms. They overperformed all expectations and took back the House and the Senate when nobody expected them to do either of those things. And so that is what I think Democrats should do now. They should, you know, take the one upside of being in the minority, take this space, reset their strategy and come back with a very aggressive focus on what we need to do to win and take that strategy into the 2026 midterms.

Adam Jentleson is a former staffer for Harry Reid, chief of staff for John Fetterman and the author of Kill Switch: The Rise of the Modern Senate and the Crippling of American Democracy. And that's all for this episode of The assignment, a production of CNN Audio. This show was produced by Dan Bloom and Sofía Sanchez. Our senior producer is Matt Martinez. Dan Dzula is our technical director and Steve Lickteig is the executive producer of CNN Audio. We also had support from Haley Thomas, Alex Manasseri, Robert Mathers, Jon Dianora, Leni Steinhardt, Jamus Andrest, Nichole Pesaru, and Lisa Namerow. Special thanks, as always to Katie Hinman. And thank you for listening.