Gordon L. Weil
The Democrats sense their chance to retake control of the
federal government and put a lid on MAGA.
But they run the risk of getting in their own way.
They see their wins in Virginia, New Jersey and New York
City as signs the voters are turning away from President Trump and toward them. Pundits pile onto this snap judgment, possibly
engaging in wishful thinking.
There’s still a long way until November 2026, and we know nothing
about intervening events. Also,
notwithstanding its recent victories, the Democratic Party struggles to find
its identity and a leader.
Perhaps the Dems biggest problem is that it is engaged in a
family feud about what it needs to win next year. Of course, they agree or hope that opposing
Trump might be enough to return them to power.
But, beyond that, the Dems are split on their identity.
Moderates seek a revival of traditional Democratic social welfare
policies that could respond to the economic worries of middle- and lower-income
people. They want the restoration and
even the expansion of health and food support programs. Government stimulus spending is possible. At the same time, they would downplay attention
to controversial social issues.
This approach would restore more than it would innovate. At best, it could extend New Deal-style
policies, but it might not amount to real change. It could represent an attempt to link working
people with rising minorities under an activist government. It would undoubtedly unravel Trump policies.
Progressive Democrats, while not opposing the moderates’
policies, assert that they do not go far enough to meet the popular demand for
change. It is not enough to reanimate the
Affordable Care Act or pour government dollars into promoting economic
activity. They see the government being widely
regarded as a failure, pursuing policies that do not promote progress.
They would go well beyond the ACA to universal health care,
though they avoid government -run socialized medicine as in the U.K. Federal housing and food assistance would move
toward eliminating poverty. They want to
restore environmental regulation. And they favor measures to allow equal
opportunity for all people in society who face discrimination.
The moderates worry that progressive policies have limited
appeal to the electorate, and progressives complain that moderates ignore increasing
demands for major change. Each sees the
other as either being too narrow or too unrealistic to regain the support of a
winning, popular majority.
This kind of split in the Democratic Party is nothing
new. It’s almost business as usual.
After World War II, moderate President Harry Truman battled progressives
led by Henry Wallace. They differed on policy toward the Soviet Union
with Truman taking a hard line and Wallace believing that partnership was
possible. Truman prevailed.
In 1980, moderate Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter defeated liberal
Sen. Ted Kennedy for the nomination. Twelve
years later, moderate Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton overcame the drive of progressive
California Gov. Jerry Brown. In 2006,
Sen. Barack Obama, seen as a liberal, had to defeat Hilary Cinton, perhaps seen
as more moderate.
The split did not prevent Democrats on either side from winning
elections when they achieved enough party unity to defeat divided or dispirited
GOP opposition. That’s what the Dems hope for in the 2028 presidential
election. They work to send strong, advance
signals by winning next year’s congressional contests.
Each side now believes that Trump will sink himself, and they
offer the better alternative. But there
is a better model in their party’s history than seeking to prevail over other Dems. It was the coalition put together by Franklin
D. Roosevelt in winning his first two terms as president.
Roosevelt faced Democratic divisions far deeper than the
party does today. The most obvious divide
existed between Dixie Democrats, southerners who supported segregation, and
northern Black constituencies, which demanded greater access. Political tradition and expediency kept them
in the same party.
FDR needed the support of all congressional Democrats to
deal with the Depression and its economic dislocation. He identified the issues shared by all their
constituents, no matter their views on race.
Improving economic conditions for everybody unified the Dems. Beyond the necessary core programs, their divide
survived.
Today’s Democrats could try to create a unifying platform focusing
on their common understanding of broad national priorities. In a huge nation, it is futile to believe
that, beyond their shared core interests, all Dems are likely to see party
policy the same way.
If winning is what matters most, the Democrats need to turn
their core agreements into their national platform and not require total unity. Compromise is essential, and it’s needed now,
as is a unifying national leader.
Otherwise, the Dems might end up echoing statesman Henry
Clay’s famous declaration: “I would rather be right than be president.” Despite numerous tries, he never was
president.
