The Democratic Party: A Masterclass in Losing Elections

Image courtesy: Labicanense via Wikimedia Commons

Since Trump’s inauguration, one question has remained front of mind: why aren’t the Democrats doing anything?

In a press conference last month, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries responded to constituents’ demands that Democrats do something, anything, to combat the onslaught of executive orders and DOGE cuts by whining: “What leverage do we have? They control the House, the Senate, and the presidency; it’s their government.” Can you imagine how much better life would be if, back in 2008, then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had adopted such a defeatist attitude? After all, (in)famously declaring that rendering Obama a one-term president was “the single most important thing we want to achieve,” his single-minded devotion to hindering the new administration at every turn arguably set in motion our current crisis.

But with few exceptions, since January, the Democratic strategy can only be defined as acquiescence. Clearly, the Party is either fatally ineffective or woefully disengaged.

It is true that controlling neither House nor Senate significantly limits scope for action. But facing a mere three-seat Republican majority, Jeffries is far from incapacitated. If he wants to flip the House in 2026, he not only can, but in fact must use the next two years to demonstrate just how hard Democrats are willing to fight for the American people. But the sobering truth is that, aside from repeatedly telling us how “bad” Trump is (as if every voter wasn’t already intimately familiar with his character), the Democrats have no plan for action. And this is not a new problem.

Before the election, the public repeatedly insisted that to win their votes, the Democrats had to offer something substantially different. But Kamala Harris signalled her adherence to the status quo by declaring she would have done “not a thing” differently from Biden. This was perhaps an unfair question for the Vice President, whose relationship with her boss was by all appearances founded upon loyalty, respect, and mutual appreciation. But it certainly didn’t help her cause.

At the very least, one would expect Trump’s victory to have finally forced the Democrats to realise that presenting themselves as the “lesser” of two evils without addressing any of their own failings is not a viable long-term strategy. 

But if my inbox is any indication, this is not the case – in email after email, Nancy Pelosi airs her extreme indignation, insisting that my donation will stop Trump’s agenda in its tracks. But beyond sending “an OVERWHELMING message,” they offer not even the slightest hint as to how they will use my $15 to achieve this goal. The big, bold, and brilliant strategy, then, is to raise as much money as is humanly possible without making any changes to their platform. Apparently missing is the recognition that successfully fundraising for re-election requires at least “concepts of a plan.”

The past week is a case in point. Before Trump’s rambling State of the Union address, Jeffries made the Party stance clear: Democrats were not to stage any disruptions that would “draw attention.” Reassuringly, many ignored this directive, but their ‘resistance’ was rather disappointing. Some brought small signs. Others wore pink because, as one Representative explained, “it’s time to rev up the opposition and come at Trump loud and clear.” Unfortunately, not everyone shares this confidence in the “power” of pink, and the Democrats were panned for their stunningly ineffective protest.

The exception was Representative Al Green of Texas. Standing up, cane in hand, to cry out defiantly against Trump’s repeated claim that voters had bestowed upon him a “mandate” for radical change, Green cast a powerful image of resistance. Asked whether “yelling” effectively communicated his point, Green emphasised the impossibility of engaging respectfully with one “who uses his incivility against our civility.” He promised to “accept the punishment”, because it was “worth” showing the public that at least someone will “stand up against this president’s desire to cut Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.” Green’s defence perfectly encapsulates the reality of modern American politics – a reality which most Democrats seem to ignore: polite and mature discourse remains the ideal, but when the opposing team insists upon playing dirty, we have to respond in kind. In the era of “move fast and break things”, the point of civility has perhaps passed.

But on Thursday, ten Democrats voted with the Republicans to censure Green. One such Democrat, Representative Ami Bera, justified his decision on the following grounds: “We have a clear strategy on how to defeat Donald Trump” – ensuring voters “understand what Donald Trump is doing.” Reiterating the Party line, “when we act as individuals, that draws attention away.” Reading between the lines, a rather pernicious admission becomes evident: giving Trump free reign to destroy lives will force voters to realise their mistake. This dangerously half-baked plan reflects both a worrying lack of foresight and, far more disturbingly, a thinly-veiled willingness to sacrifice the very people they purport to represent as human pawns.

That is not to say that no elected Democrat cares about their constituents. The issue, rather, is the Party apparatus. Individual politicians can only do so much; meaningful opposition needs to come from above. But if Green’s censure is any indication, change isn’t coming any time soon. And while I object on principle to the idea that the Founding Fathers had some sort of crystal ball guiding their infallible judgment, it merits reiterating that this was never intended to be a two-party system. If the Democrats don’t start addressing real and valid criticisms, then, their dogged insistence upon staying the course may well become a death sentence. A product of misplaced confidence in their own untouchability, obstinance would be a fitting demise.

In my opinion, “don’t compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative” should go down in history as one of the worst political slogans of all time. Winning candidates focus on the demands of voters, something which is not achieved by forcing said voters into unappealing compromises that hardly address, much less excuse, personal inadequacies. And so, while Democrats remain stuck in the mire, Trump’s hollow populism will continue to lure voters back in, a masterclass in false messaging and empty promises.