Since its inception in 2005, Third Way has been the leading intellectual voice of moderate Democrats in Washington. While many on the left used Hillary Clinton’s defeat in 2016 to take a victory lap and blame centrists for losing the presidency, Third Way and its founder and longtime President Jonathan Cowan are the ones laughing now. Joe Biden, the moderate’s moderate, will soon be president, backed by a Congress largely made up of the suburban centrists Third Way spent 2018 and 2020 helping to flip red districts.
Blue Tent spoke with Cowan by phone before the November elections and then again afterward; during the interview in early October, Cowan said he was so confident in Biden’s strength in suburban swing districts that he wasn’t even thinking about a contingency plan if Trump were to win again. In those conversations, which have been combined and edited below for length and clarity, Cowan explained the journey he and Third Way took from the ashes of 2016 to the impending victory of 2020, and his hopes for an ambitious Biden administration. Cowan also addressed his Democratic adversaries on the left, Third Way’s funding, the need for diversity in think tanks, and the recent wave of unionization among progressive nonprofits.
(This interview has been edited for clarity.)
BT: What are lessons you’re taking away so far from how things have played out at both the Presidential level as well as House, Senate, and local elections?
JC: We’re taking away one really significant lesson, and I think the data overwhelmingly bear this out, which is Democrats have a moderate majority, and that moderate majority was won in the White House, sustained in the House, and it is the only possible path by which Democrats can get the Senate back, whether it’s with the Georgia seats, or in 2022, or 2024 or beyond.
And the evidence is overwhelming. Joe Biden won the general election because he was a moderate. The data shows that he was seen as more moderate than Trump, but Trump was viewed as more moderate than Hillary Clinton. [Biden] overwhelmingly won moderate voters. And Biden, as a moderate, outperformed far-left candidates. So just to give you one really, really striking example: Biden won [Nebraska’s second congressional district] by seven points. Well, in stark contrast, Tara Eastman, who was running for the second time in that district with the backing of Justice Democrats and running as a standard-style Democratic Socialist, she lost that district by six points, a 13-point gap between the top of the ticket and a very proud Justice Democrat, Bernie-style candidate who was running her second time.
I’ll give you one other example that’s really stunning: Rep. Omar’s district, a district that’s deep, deep blue, where she is very popular, she won that district but got 73,000 less votes than Joe Biden. He got almost a third more votes in her district than she did. If every Democrat under-performed by that much in their district, Democrats wouldn’t have a House majority.
And lastly, what you see is, you’ve now had two full cycles in 2018 and 2020 in which the far left said, “Our ideas and our candidates are so popular that we will swing a number of seats from red to blue.” And we have now gone two full cycles in which not a single candidate backed by Justice Democrats or Our Revolution has flipped a seat from red to blue from the far left. All the seats that have been flipped have been flipped by moderate candidates running on moderate ideas.
BT: Over the past few years, Third Way spent a lot of time and a lot of money studying the mistakes of 2016. What do you think are the biggest things that you and perhaps others got wrong about 2016, and what lessons have you learned?
JC: The deepest, most enduring thing we heard was this kind of very deep sense of anxiety and frustration and anger that people had toward their ability to earn a good life, and in particular, and this is the one word that came up over and over and over and over again, is whether people use that word or not, was people wanted to earn a good life.
They didn’t want it handed to them. They didn’t want any special favors. They wanted a real shot at earning a good life. And they felt that, you know, 15 years into a new century, that that just wasn’t available to them, and that equal opportunity had really faded, and they didn’t believe that the best way to try to restore that was through electing a Democrat.
They wanted progress. And they wanted a vital center in the country that could actually get things done and a sense of urgency about improving their lives. They weren’t particularly attracted to the extremes. It just so happened that the alternative to the Democrats was Trump at the time, and it was a binary choice.
So armed with that, we set out with a very, very simple and focused political mission over the ensuing couple of years… put a check on Trump by winning back [the House] in 2018, and then dump Trump in 2020.
BT: How did you go about pursuing that mission?
JC: So in 2018, we spent a huge amount of time working in particular with House candidates who were in seats that needed to be flipped from red to blue so we could get majorities. And we did a massive amount of work on policy, on messaging, on polling, on debate prep, to help these candidates understand the district they were trying to flip and help them have the right policy and message to put to those districts. And we obsessed about that for a year and a half. And we said over and over and over again during that time period that what wins these districts was moderate Democratic candidates, not far-left Democratic candidates. And, as you know, the data proved us completely right in 2018. Basically, all of the seats that were flipped from red to blue were flipped by more mainstream, moderate Democrats.
And just to be clear, that was a diverse group of moderates; diverse in terms of gender, diverse in terms of race, diverse in terms of geography and personal background, very diverse group of moderates to flip the house.
Then when that job was complete, and it was very clear that what had worked was not the far-left policy agenda and democratic socialism, but a mainstream or moderate Democratic agenda and vision and candidates.
We then took that into the next phase, which was dumping Trump, and the first part of dumping Trump was making sure that the party nominated someone who could appeal to the swing voters and center of the country in the core half-dozen battleground states—most importantly, the “blue wall” states. And our conviction coming out of the research we’ve done after 2016 and the results of the 2018 election was, is, the Democratic Party nominated someone who was more moderate and carried a modern and moderate agenda, that would have the absolute best chance of beating Trump. We also felt very strongly that if the Democrats nominated a Democratic Socialist running on a far-left agenda, that would virtually guarantee that Trump was reelected.
We waged a very public debate with Bernie Sanders for almost two years, and Sanders identified us repeatedly, called us out by name as an organization, and we’re very proud of the fact we were the leading outside group in the entire Democratic Party that openly took on Sanders and contributed to his defeat.
It’s not because we wish Bernie Sanders ill will. He’s a man of deep convictions and sincerity. It’s because we don’t believe that his politics and his policies are able to either flip a district blue, and much more importantly, in this instance, flip the country from Trump back to the Democrats.
Once Sanders was beat and Biden secured the nomination, we then focused on the last piece of the puzzle, which was helping the Democratic nominee win, and our critical focus during that time, the last year, in the run-up to the general election has been on the suburbs, and we have obsessed solely about the suburbs, because in 2016, Donald Trump won the suburbs, and it was our view based on a lot of research, that if you could flip the suburbs, you could flip the White House.
BT: What do you think should be the first things on Biden’s table as he enters the Oval Office?
JC: There’s a couple of things we believe in the first two years that really need to rise to the top. The first and most important is, he has got to push through, in his first 100 days, a truly to-scale comprehensive and ambitious package of economic and healthcare reforms that can deal with the corona crisis. He’ll be like FDR coming in the middle of a massive historic crisis and have to move very quickly to pass legislation that can deal with both the health and the economic impact of that crisis.
So once that is done, and knock on wood that can be done quickly, he then needs to pivot to some very ambitious reforms to the country. Things that we’d like to see that he pivots to include an expansion and reform of the ACA, both to cover more people but also to impose a fairly radical measure ... that we’ve been pushing very hard, and the Biden team supports, which is to put in place cost caps on healthcare, which would be probably one of the most dramatic changes in 50 years in American healthcare, in which the amount that you can pay out — either premiums or deductibles — is capped based on your income.
We’d also like to see very significant and ambitious action on climate change. We believe there’s a window, and if there’s a Biden administration, there’s a short window for the world and for the country to act on climate change. And we’d like to see very immediate action on that.
We will be releasing a very comprehensive and ambitious agenda that would provide a new contract for work so that every American is able to earn a good life for themselves and their family, with really big, ambitious ideas. Things like universal minimum pension... on top of Social Security; a million apprenticeships a year; I could go on and on, but we believe that it’s gonna be crucial for Biden to fulfill the central promises of this campaign, which is we need an economy that rewards work, not just wealth. And we’re gonna be releasing what probably will be one of the most ambitious, comprehensive agendas in Democratic politics to fulfill that promise of rewarding work.
BT: How do you square the fact that polls show that Americans favor these kind of big, Bernie Sanders-style ideas like Medicare for All, free college, wealth taxes, but at the same time, those same people voted for Biden in both the primary and in the general election?
JC: Let’s just take Medicare for All to make it very concrete. The assertion that a large majority of the country favors Medicare for All is a false assertion. Poll after poll after poll shows that when voters, not just Democratic primary voters, but voters overall, actually are given the details about Medicare for All, support plummets well below a majority. So it is highly misleading to say that, for example, in Medicare for All, that there’s this discrepancy between policies that the vast majority of voters favor, but the candidates they are choosing.
Second, it actually makes no sense! People chose moderate, mainstream Democrats on moderate, mainstream ideas in 2018—I’ll give you an example: Nobody who flipped the seat from red to blue in 2018, nobody who flipped a seat from red to blue, ran ads or backed Medicare for All, not one person. So what happened in the Democratic primaries was people said, I want change, I want big things, but I want change that can happen. I don’t want faculty lounge change, ideas that sound good in a faculty lounge that will actually never happen in the real world, and that’s what Medicare for All is.
So when you take something like Medicare for All... I can enumerate the reasons we think it’s actually a bad policy idea, it’s [also] a disaster on politics. Both the 2018 midterms and the 2020 primary proved that to be the case. And don’t take my word or any poll’s word for it. If something were truly popular and a winner at the ballot box, then the nominee of the Democratic Party would fully back it, because they want to win elections! The people who flipped seats from red to blue to give Democrats control of the House in 2018 would have backed it. But they didn’t. And that tells you all you need to know.
BT: I want to ask you about the Democratic ecosystem in D.C. and how the organization operates; what kind of relationships does Third Way have on the Hill, with ideological allies like the new Democratic Coalition?
JC: So the way I think about us is, we are the leading centrist Democratic organization in Washington and in the country, and we aim to be and are a driving force for a big-tent Democratic Party. And a big-tent Democratic party means one that can get majorities and enact significant legislative and executive branch accomplishments like the ACA, which we worked very hard on with the Obama administration.
On the more specific question of how we get things done. We work very closely with the House and the Senate. We work not just with people you think of as ideological allies. We actually work widely across the party, and it depends on the issue. So for example, we’ve worked a ton with Sheldon Whitehouse on climate change and next-generation nuclear power.
Our view is, we will work with everyone who’s a Democrat in the House and the Senate to get stuff done. And if you’re really serious about being a governing party, you are constantly shifting coalitions, and you might be an ally with somebody on a big higher education reform, and you’ll be arguing with them over a particular aspect of climate policy. So we pride ourselves on being able to work across the ideological spectrum of the Democratic Party, even while we have a very close partnership with our more moderate allies, like the New Democrats and the Democratic moderates in the Senate.
BT: Where does Third Way get its funding?
JC: So in 2019, we got our funding about 50% from foundations, about a third from individuals and about 15% from companies. So, going to last year, which is emblematic of most of our years, half of the funding comes from foundations, and that’s places like the Gates Foundation, Hewlett, MacArthur, Lumina, Arnold Ventures, Packard, Climate Works, those kinds of major foundations. Individuals are a range of people, both people on our board and some people who weren’t on our board. And then companies, generally Fortune-1000-size companies, who comprise only about 15% of our budget, and those are generally companies who give to a range of think tanks and public policy organizations on the left, right and center in Washington and in state capitals.
BT: How do you respond to people who call Third Way the “Wall Street Wing” of the Democratic Party?
JC: First of all, it’s just factually inaccurate. The majority of funding comes from foundations, and so it’s just inaccurate. Second is, look at the positions we’ve taken and the things we fought for.
For example, we are big and passionate defenders of Dodd-Frank, and had both Dodd and Frank and Paul Volcker and Sheila Bair as lead speakers at Third Way events championing Dodd-Frank, which was loathed by Wall Street. We stood behind and fought for all the major tax increases on corporations and higher earners that the Obama administration proposed as well as passed. So if you actually look at the substance of our positions, they indicate very clearly that we are a passionately progressive organization that isn’t beholden to anyone, any single funder, regardless of where they come from.
Third is, I’ve never had anybody on our board, regardless of their background, argue for a particular position that’s good for Wall Street or themselves. If you join a group like Third Way, and the organization passionately defends Dodd-Frank and backs trillions of dollars in new taxes on corporations and wealthy people, you are working against your own interest if you’re contributing to that organization, and that’s the primary thing you want out of your philanthropy. You would be better to go to Heritage Foundation or Cato or any other right-wing group if that’s what you wanted. So the charge itself literally collapses and makes no sense, either on the facts, on the results that we produce, or on our actual funding makeup.
There are folks on the left who are profoundly frustrated that they are unable to come up with a politics and a set of ideas that can consistently flip not one, not two, dozens of seats from red to blue, that they can’t win Democratic primaries. They’re beyond frustrated because they understand that many of their ideas and their electoral strategies have been proven repeatedly outside of the deepest blue places to be losers, including in Democratic primaries. And out of that frustration, they just attack ad hominem, regardless of the facts,
I feel badly for them that their politics, their ideas keep proving to be political losers at the congressional and at the presidential level, but that’s the reality of it, and it’s disappointing that they decide to launch attacks. But when you look at the people who have been elected president in modern times — Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and, god willing, Joe Biden — they are all mainstream moderate, Third Way kind of Democrats. And if you look at the people who flipped the House in 2018, they’re mainstream, moderate, Third Way kind of Democrats. They’re not beholden to anyone but their constituents, and we’re not beholden to anything except our progressive values and convictions about what’s right for the country.
BT: Looking through your board, of the 30 members, the overwhelming majority are men. Do you see that as a problem for Third Way or as something the organization should address?
JC: Absolutely. We have fantastic diversity inside the organization at the staff level; it has been much harder to get the kind of racial, gender and geographical diversity that I would like on the board. And we’re very frustrated, it’s something we’re working very hard on to try to change. And I’m hopeful in the coming years we’ll be able to change it.
BT: Why do you think it’s been so hard to diversify the board?
JC: I think it’s been hard because their first obligation and organization is to be able to raise the funds that you need to run and advance your policies and your politics, and it’s just happened that the people who decided to join the board, it’s skewed in a particular direction. It’s not for want of trying. So I’m very frustrated by it, but it’s something we’re deeply committed to working on and changing.
BT: You talked about your staff being very diverse; were there efforts that Third Way conducted to make diversity a priority?
JC: Absolutely. We’ve been working like heck for the last bunch of years to make diversity a priority at the organization. How we recruit, reshaping the culture of the organization, using our alumni network, the extensive amounts of internal discussion and training around diversity, equity and inclusion. There’s something we’re deeply committed to... I believe, actually, we have a very diverse organization when you look at the totality of our 60 or so staff. And that was a very conscious effort.
For any organization in the not-for-profit space, this is a challenge, and it’s a challenge that you’re never done fulfilling. The staff levels have come a really, really long way in the last 15 years, and I’m very proud... we have a way to go on our board, and that’s something we’re just gonna keep working at.
BT: Last question I have for you: In recent years, a number of nonprofits, especially progressive nonprofits, have seen their staffs form unions. As an organization that has voiced support for good union jobs, if Third Way’s staff were to organize a union, would Third Way’s leadership support that?
JC: The answer is, it just has never come up. So if it came up, that’s something we would be very, very passionate and thoughtful about figuring out how to do that in the right way.
You know, we’re deep believers in unions, and it hasn’t come up, but if it did come up, it’s the kind of thing we would want to do and do in the right way.
BT: So in general, again very hypothetically, if it were to happen, you would be generally supportive of it?
JC: Yeah. I mean, we’re a progressive organization, so yes.
It’s like a multilayer hypothetical, because it just hasn’t come up. And I will say, we are very proud of the employment experience at Third Way. We work very hard at diversity, equity, inclusion. We offer what I consider, for a not-for-profit, very generous compensation and healthcare. We have a very generous vacation policy. We have a strong alumni network and really help people move on with their careers. So we work very hard to be a very progressive employer and to live our values.
