Gordon L. Weil
The Democrats lost the last elections. They remain lost.
Who are they?
Right now, they have a split personality – at least in three
ways.
The first group, which includes most congressional Democrats,
believes the party was doing well before Trump’s comeback. The Affordable Care Act, infrastructure spending,
slowing inflation, low unemployment and attention to marginalized people all
seemed to be reasons for satisfaction.
On the economy, the Democrats were vulnerable, not having made
their case. National numbers were good,
but at the individual level, a combination of frustration and misunderstanding
remained.
They also ignored broad national concern about a seemingly
unchecked flood of immigrants. They
failed to understand that many Americans were deeply worried that their powerful
nation could not control its borders or might not even want to limit
unauthorized immigration.
The Biden administration’s focus on issues like sexual
preferences, aiding the victims of discrimination, and even repaying college
loans did not resonate with working people harmed by inflation and discontented
with an unresponsive government. Some
voters saw Biden focusing on marginal problems and not on their concerns.
The Democrats unwisely took for granted the support of such
people. Their lack of seriousness about
inflation was evidenced by the naïve pronouncements of candidate Kamela Harris.
The party demonstrated an overblown sense of pride in its agenda and
accomplishments and incorrectly believed that the Democratic platform was
popular.
What they saw as their success bred overconfidence. Proud of their achievements and aware of the
first Trump presidency, they were confident they could win. But first they had to recover from the problems
created by Biden’s prolonged attachment to his belief that he was the best
suited to defeat Trump.
In the end, they misread the electorate. Many people had lost faith in government and,
as they had since the 2008 election, demanded change. Good or bad, what the Democrats served up was
more of the same, not change.
The aging cohort that pursued that course still makes up
much of the congressional Democratic contingent. They are led by Sen. Chuck Schumer, who fails
to project the image of a renewed party.
Lacking an alternative agenda, they allow Trump, still smarting from his
2020 loss, to keep running against Biden.
The second face of the Democrats are the progressives led by
Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. They campaign across the country, arguing that
the Democrats can only win with policies rejecting the demands of billionaires,
which come at the expense of average people.
In short, if the GOP has gained by going right, marooning
traditional Republicans, the Democratic Party would gain by going left and either
dragging traditional leaders along or dumping them. Copying Trump, one young party leader wants
to run
progressives against older, establishment Democrats in congressional primaries.
Their platform may emphasize the issues that led many voters
to believe that Biden focused on marginal groups. Their complaints against “oligarchy”
may be too abstract. But they make a
strong case against Trump’s unconstitutional and illegal actions. They encourage sorely needed party activists.
The progressives openly stage a challenge to establishment
Democrats, whose incumbency can be used to defeat their more liberal agenda. Open primaries between the two sides are unlikely
to swing the party, and winning progressives could be markedly more liberal
than the general electorate.
The third Democratic component are the pragmatists, considered
to be moderates. They want to produce solutions that are more
practical than ideological. They may agree
with Republicans when they reach similar solutions and avoid knee-jerk partisanship. That could have political appeal.
The pragmatists respond to concerns that the party may appears
too “politically correct,” labeled by Trump as “woke.” They understand that some voters worry the Democrats
have become more responsive to the desires of the elite than to the needs of blue-collar
workers.
As a result, they support policies to bring immigration under
control, to update trade rules to redress relationships with other countries,
and to simplify regulation to spur economic growth. These positions may align, at least to some
degree, with the GOP.
But they remain strongly opposed to Trump’s methods that
override checks and balances by ignoring Congress and the courts. They back efforts to prevent discrimination
and to recognize the values of a diverse society.
They lack a single voice, but California Gov. Gavin Newsom seeks
the role. It remains for him and others to
win over establishment Democrats and progressives.
Democratic policy favors more government. Republican policy demands less government. Is
a pragmatic policy of “some of each” viable?
Whatever the solution for the Democrats, if they expect to halt
Trump by prevailing in the 2026 congressional elections, they must find common
ground and a common voice – and soon.
Otherwise, by leaving their current struggles unresolved, they will
become responsible for more Trump rule.
