In defense of ‘Fish, Family and Freedom’
Democrats could learn from Mary Peltola
On Monday, Mary Peltola, Democrat of Alaska, announced her candidacy for the U.S. Senate with the slogan “Fish, Family and Freedom.” Democrats across the political spectrum quickly celebrated the successful recruitment of Peltola. She is one of the strongest-performing Democrats electorally that Alaska has seen put up in decades.
Peltola previously won statewide by a decent margin and outran the top of the Democratic ticket while maintaining a diverse coalition made up of rural, urban, union, and native communities. Her electoral success shouldn’t be reduced to luck or the quality of her opponents.
One user on X remarked: “the national party making fish as a tentpole issue is probably a mistake.’”
But what if it’s not, actually?
The case for Fish as a centerpiece of the party does not mean that landlocked Kansan candidates need to campaign on hyperscaling fisheries. The case for Fish is simple: candidates need to make localized, materialist policies central to their campaigns even as forces from the donor, activist, and media classes seek to nationalize, homogenize, and flatten issues.
Alaska provides 60% of the commercial catch in this country. Fisheries are one of the largest private employers in the state. Fish being a focus of her campaign feels like a no-brainer, especially in an election cycle that will likely be defined most by the economy and pocketbook issues.
It is more than just the economy. Fish is an appeal to the most material of Alaska’s politics. Through Fish, Alaskans feel their concerns of climate change in the least abstract way. They feel the continuity of their culture and tradition. Through Fish, Alaskans understand whether the government is competent and fair.
I could go on, but the point is that Peltola has identified a material issue that addresses the many anxieties that plague Americans but aren’t being addressed on the national level.
This gets at something that has infested our politics broadly. ‘The issues’ have become too nationalized despite politics being felt on a more interpersonal and local level. Candidates running for office have become increasingly more focused on issues that their respective leadership has placed before them.
The policy menu is written, agreed upon, and disbursed by party leadership, advocacy groups, donors, and media. Nationalization flattens a politics once built on regional and factional differences into one built on a national party identity that often fails to deliver for those it claims to serve. The policy pages, especially on the progressive side, read as almost a copy and paste of each other — devoid of any sort of regional identification.
As candidates move towards homogeneity in their policy, this nationalization issue will continue to worsen. What becomes sacrificed is not the ambition or values that a campaign holds but rather a deeper and more material connection to voters. This slow march towards political uniformity can be avoided. Peltola demonstrates that.
Every single state has its own Fish. There is a material concern that is deeply rooted in the personal autonomy and identities of a broad cohort of constituents in every district or state.
As a party, Democrats need to stop focusing on national ideological coherence. It’s not resonating with voters on a material level. Fish does.