One of the questions this last cycle has made us ask is, what does it mean to be a Democrat? Of course, in a two-party system, there are multiple “Democratic Parties” with different, sometimes conflicting agendas, each at the helm of the Democratic Party at various points. Insight magazine did a similar one about conservatives in the Bush era, with such neologisms as “theocon” (as opposed to “sociocon”, but I still fail to see the difference other than marketing), “Buchanocon”, and “radiocon”; Playboy magazine later added “South Park conservative” to the list. In that vein, I propose a Democratic family tree of our various factions, and do note that these factions may intersect:
Ergocrats Unionized workers. Their power has waned, of course; some of the unions backed Nixon in 1968, which led to the disastrous choice to abandon unions in favor of an ambiguous “youth culture” and contributed to George McGovern’s loss. Ironically, advocates of abandoning labor and economic issues from the DLC to last year have insisted they were “not McGovern”. Their relationships with other parts of the Democratic Party are...rocky. They used to have a strong relationship with the civil rights wing, but the murder of Vincent Chin, the fact that some on the right opposed anti-labor policies (free trade, guest worker programs) for reasons more related to race, and some gaslights by the more economically libertarian side of the party, have weakened that somewhat.
Egalicrats The civil rights wing of the party. This is the bulk of urban Democratic support, and why Democrats win California. There is, however, a bit of a split even among this faction on some issues, often because of a failure to grok intersectionality. (In simple terms, intersectionality is “Black women exist.” More complicated, black women face issues neither black men nor white women face. Repeat for any other two or more disempowered groups, with exceptions where it’s not logically possible.) And they have splits with other wings occasionally. They are the most reliable Democratic voters, though. You can’t win without them, but they’re the most reliable Democratic voters. The Republicans are included.
Ecocrats Scientists who aren’t normally all that political, but anthropogenic global warming, coupled with one party’s steadfast denial of it, has made them resort to political means. They’re also harsh critics of the Trump administration, especially Betsy DeVos and the wretched hive of SCAM and villainy known as Neurocore. They often align with Dems’ socially liberal aims as well, not least because “socially conservative” in politics typically includes theocratic, racist, or otherwise antiscience themes. And as a bonus, they loathe supply-siders. Note that these guys are not Greens and have little use for the Green Party’s antiscience.
Liebercrats The “Why are these people Democrats?” Democrats, more commonly known as the DLC. They started as a coalition of leftover Dixiecrats and Libertarians who had recently joined the Democrats in a hostile takeover. (It was the 80s; business terminology makes sense.) Mostly they’re included here for historical note, since most of them have left to join totally-in-the-tank-for-Trump Third Way, but a few organizations, such as the New Democrats, have claimed to be heirs of the DLC.
Yuppiecrats More socially liberal than the Liebercrats, but they have a habit of conflating that social liberalism with their economic libertarianism, e.g. the only reason one could oppose importing goods from countries known for human trafficking is racism. They generally rely on market solutions. The downside is, this often leads to solutions that aren’t really, e.g. ride-sharing apps haven’t really fixed discrimination among taxi drivers. Absolutely loathed by ergocrats and merely tolerated by egalicrats. However, they do provide a lot of money. And they really do care, just not enough to pay a couple extra points in taxes.
Oprahcrats A subset of yuppiecrats, but interesting in that until the 80s, they were solid Republicans. Mostly they have their own version of the culture war: Not just the classic blue-state culture war issue, guns, but also things like MMA and fishing, and are even sometimes prone to tilting at windmills like “jenkem” and “rainbow parties”. And they’re often a strawman feminist presented by the alt right. Oprah and Rosie O’Donnell are their intellectual forebears.
Ferrarocrats are the “first X president” people. The name comes from Geraldine Ferraro, of course. And they are very much her intellectual heirs, although there was a split over Obama. Some of them voted for McCain.
Tumblrcrats are McGovern’s heirs. Basically these are typically so far-left that they have an almost Gnostic rejection of labor or economic issues. They’ll often be the archetypal single-issue voter, and they care a lot about representation in media more than political issues. And if the egalicrats’ splits are something, Tumblrcrats will split over who should have the mic first when there’s plenty of time for everybody.
Republicrats Democrats who wish they had the Republican base. This is why you’ll hear pundits go on about winning some permutation of affluent suburban white Southern voters.
iCrats These are similar to the ecocrats. They were really brought on by Obama, and they bring a lot to the Party: They can show how to go from platform to policy efficiently, they can give probabilities that certain demos will respond favorably to certain candidates or policies, they can draft up fair district maps (if they’re ever given a chance!). I must admit, I have iCrat tendencies. The bad side is, they have a tendency to think technology will solve everything, ignoring social inertia: Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism is the fluffy side of iCrats.
Each side has things going for them and against them. The difficult part is getting them to work together. You can tell which ones I support.