How Democrats Got Backed Into a Corner
The top ten political challenges facing Democrats right now.
Democrats are understandably alarmed by Don Trump’s assault on democracy and good governance. Yet they’re also frustrated by their party’s inability to check him.
I’m devoting this week’s article to examining the reasons why Democrats are having such a difficult time responding to Trump. Part of the reason is that Trump and the Republicans are pressing their advantages hard. They’re moving fast in a lot of different areas and aren’t afraid to break the guardrails that typically keep American democracy from veering off course. Trump also has near total domination over his party, faces no virtually dissent from a cuckolded Republican Congress, and can count on a conservative media ecosystem to propagate his message and block out critiques of his rule.
I want to focus this analysis, however, on the aspects of the Democratic Party itself that are making it difficult for the party to counter Trump. I’m not concerning myself here with the ideological orientation of the party or its policy positions. Instead, to many observers, Democrats just don’t seem to have it within them to fight back against Trump. Some have said the party is simply too dejected at the moment to muster a resistance. A lot of Democrats, though, have moved past the point of dejection and are ready to act, but are at a loss as to what to do. They feel like they’ve been backed into a corner. There’s no room for maneuver, and their prospects for action seem ineffective or even counter-productive.
I’ll admit I don’t know what Democrats ought to do right now. What I do hope to do with this article, however, is lay out the reasons why Democrats feel so helpless at the moment. Maybe by stating explicitly what those problems are, Democrats can find a way to start fighting back.
So here they are: The top ten political challenges facing Democrats right now.
Democrats are locked out of power: This one’s obvious. Democrats don’t have majorities in the legislative branch, they don’t control the executive branch, and they’re outnumbered in the judicial branch. That means they lack an institutional check on Trump. This problem is most pronounced in Congress, where Democrats can’t call hearings, initiate investigations, compel votes on legislation, or claim a seat at the bargaining table.
That said, there are some glimmers of hope here. The Republican majority in the House is very slim and fractious, which gives Democrats there some potential leverage if House Republicans can’t operate in near-total unison. Senate Democrats can use procedural maneuvers to slow the chamber down as much as possible. In doing so, senate Democrats run the risk of being labeled obstructionist, but voters historically have not been very responsive to that charge; if anything, voters would more likely hold the party that controls the White House and both houses of Congress accountable for legislative inaction.
As for the judiciary, Democratic-appointed lower-court judges have the potential to put the brakes on Trump, and it’s possible John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett find the courage to join the Supreme Court’s liberal minority in defending the Constitution. Yet Trump and his flunkies have also indicated they’re prepared to disregard the courts if they hand down a ruling they dislike. Finally, don’t count out the potential for state and local Democrats to meddle in Trump’s plans like Republican governors Greg Abbott of Texas and Ron DeSantis of Florida did during Biden’s presidency.
At the end of the day, though, the main game is played between the legislative and executive branches, and without a majority, Democratic members of Congress can do little meaningful work beyond constituent service. They’ll need to devote most of their energy to organizing and messaging ahead of the 2026 midterms, which will take place a long twenty-one months from now.
Democrats are defending the political system: Democrats are doing what responsible political parties are supposed to do in situations like the one America finds itself in at the moment, which is stick up for the Constitution, democracy, and the rule of law as the nation backslides away from its democratic traditions. (If you don’t think Trump is backsliding on democracy, you’re willfully ignoring similar events that have occurred in other regressive democracies around the world over the past 10-15 years.) Those democratic traditions are vital because even when democracy produces suboptimal results, it is still preferable as a form of government to all other forms of government.
The problem, however, is that defense of democracy looks like a defense of a political system many Americans have lost faith in. That’s true across the political spectrum, as criticism of “the system” doesn’t merely come from the right or independents but also from liberals like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. We’re caught in a moment when many Americans just don’t want to preserve the system. Instead, they want to tear it down. When these voters see Democrats defending the pillars of that system from vandals, they unfortunately don’t see Democrats conscientiously standing up for a set of time-honored principles. Instead, they see a political party paying lip service to a failing, unresponsive system that they believe is rigged against them. These voters either end up disengaged or glomming onto the vandals, who at least hate the system as much as they do even if they would replace it with something awful.
Similarly…
Democrats are defending the status quo. When Democrats are found defending democracy, constitutional government, the rule of law, good governance, etc., they’re caught defending business as usual. They’re not perceived as fixing problems or doing something different, but sticking with the same damn thing. It makes Democrats seem, well, conservative.
However…
Democrats are perceived as the radical party. The Democrats are still seen as the revolutionary party of the 1960s. They’ve gained a reputation as the party that supports DEI and the Green New Deal. They want to abolish ICE and defund the police. They’ll proudly proclaim that Black (rather than All) Lives Matter and let transgender men use women’s restrooms. They’re run by campus radicals. They’re socialists and communists.
Hence the Catch-22 Democrats find themselves in at the moment: They’re seen as defending a status quo that is simultaneously too progressive for mainstream America. They are conserving a system that is too radical. Trump, by contrast, promises to reform America via restoration, to yank the country back to what it’s supposed to be and “Make America Great Again.” He’s using radical means for conservative ends.
At least so far, Trump has not paid a price for his paradox. He gets to be both. Many orthodox conservatives, who should bristle at Trump’s radicalism, have even rallied around him. Yet Democrats are trapped by their paradox, perhaps because most Americans are more concerned about ends than means (although many Americans haven’t priced in what the ends might look like if Trump’s autocratic means become the new normal.) That means the Joe Bidens of the party are too conventional and the Kamala Harrises too extreme.
So while some in the party urge Democrats to break with the status quo and stop defending the political system, Democrats are also in a bind if they dare to act too boldly. If Democrats are seen as too radical, does it make sense to counter Trumpism with a game-changing proposal like universal health care or constitutional reform? And doesn’t it also limit the way Democrats can respond to Trump if those who might use social movements, protests, and art to call for change are also often regarded as the most radical members of society?
On a related note…
Democrats are perceived as the party of outsiders. Again, this is laudable. People who have historically been discriminated against often continue to face discrimination even after their legal rights have been secured. The legacy of inequality can echo through the ages so that the descendants of those who were treated unequally remain disadvantaged. Furthermore, autocrats often consolidate their power by demonizing marginalized populations and scapegoating them for their country’s problems. Because the marginalized are seen as outsiders or deviant, it is easy for the powerful to oppress them, and because they lack political power, they frequently need allies among the powerful to take a political risk and stick up for them.
The modern Democratic Party has a reputation for standing up for marginalized populations (i.e., racial minorities, women, LGBTQ, religious minorities, immigrants and refugees.) They do so not only because they hope to stitch together a broad coalition of marginalized Americans, but because it is the right thing to do. Yet in doing so, they often appear to be putting the interests of the few ahead of the many. (Never mind that even though the majority rules, the minority still have rights, and that combating unequal outcomes often requires intentional, targeted interventions.) It is easy for a populist demagogue to brand such a party counter-majoritarian, anti-democratic, and outside the mainstream. By targeting an unpopular minority group, a demagogue can also undermine the opposition party’s popularity by daring the party to act on their conscience and come to the minority’s defense. In this way, Democrats are caught in a no-win situation: Follow their conscience, defend the minority, and find themselves relegated to the political minority (and potentially even powerless to mount a future defense) or betray their conscience and their party faithful, stay silent, and watch as the country, enraged by the demagogue, veers ever closer to embracing the worst of political sins.
Let’s move on and pick up where points #2 and #3 left off.
Democrats are defending the government: This is always a challenge for Democrats. They frequently find themselves defending an institution Americans generally loathe. Democrats do that because they believe government can play a positive role in people’s lives, but Americans tend to despise “government” until the specific benefits they receive from government are made apparent.
Anti-government sentiment is stronger than usual at the moment (even though Trump is using that sentiment to magnify his own power.) That makes life more difficult than usual for Democrats. When Democrats speak up on behalf of USAID or CFPB or NOAA, they sound like they’re defending an alphabet soup of agencies and bureaucrats rather than siding with the American people. It also puts them on the wrong side of the “fraud and waste” argument, as many Americans are convinced a lot of what government does amounts to fraud and waste. Trump and Musk’s shoot first/aim later approach to overhauling the federal government resonates with Americans who believe the bureaucracy has grown out of control. Democrats like to argue federal agencies serve the people, but unless citizens see a direct benefit, they’re more likely to regard those agencies as sources of annoyance, red tape, ineptitude, and waste.
(On a side note, the strong anti-government sentiment in the country right now makes me wonder if Democrats should tread carefully when it comes to a potential government shutdown. The government will run out of money in a few weeks, and if the pattern holds, congressional Republicans won’t be able to work with one another to find a way to keep it open, leading Speaker Johnson to ask Democrats for help. Democrats can use that moment to demand concessions from Johnson and Trump. It may even be an opportunity to rein in DOGE. But some Democrats are already stating they’re willing to let a shut down happen to squeeze Trump. Democrats need to be careful here: They can’t be seen as a party to the shutdown. The American people need to know the Republicans are in the majority and that Republicans are responsible for keeping the government open. Democrats—with a list of strong demands in hand—should only parachute in at the last minute to save the day and rescue the country from the GOP’s incompetence.)
Additionally…
Democrats are defending good governance. Progressivism isn’t just another word for liberalism. More specifically, it’s a call for good governance. If you look at the Republican track record on good governance over the past 10-15 years, it’s pretty rotten. This new era of all-Republican rule, which features ongoing dysfunction in the House and a clown car full of unqualified executive branch nominees, is no deviation from that pattern. Therefore, making an argument for good governance shouldn’t be hard.
Yet defenses of good government often involve long-winded arguments revolving around technicalities and process. Instead of pointing to concrete results, progressives instead cite statistics and abstractions. Americans are urged to live with the good and bad of bureaucratic action: “Yes, there may be some waste and cost overruns, and there’s a lot of red tape involved, and it takes a long time to get a project approved, and we need to take the concerns of various stakeholders into account, etc., but we do this all for good reasons, and the end result, while imperfect, is worth it.” Consequently, the defense of good governance typically involves acknowledging people’s frustrations with governance. Trump, in contrast, promises more immediate, direct action. He overpromises, of course, but even explaining why Trump is coming up short seems to suggest to Americans that Democrats want them to accept the limits of government action and settle for less.
Democrats are stuck on the high road. Democrats should have a massive advantage here, as Trump routinely defies political ethics and norms, lies constantly, behaves boorishly, and has been charged (and convicted!) of numerous crimes and civil offenses. Other politicians have ruined their careers for less. It makes sense for Democrats to point out that Trump is not living up to the high (or even minimum) standards the American people set for their politicians.
Yet Trump has convinced many Americans that they must accept his pathological deviancy as part of the package. (His most devoted followers consider it an asset.) We’ve come to expect nothing more from him. The standards don’t apply to Trump, and we’ve come to accept that as normal for Trump. It’s to the point where Democrats can appear snobbish and condescending for calling Trump out for his misbehavior.
The bigger problem for Democrats is that by continuing to hold Trump to those higher standards, they condition the country to hold them to those same standards. When Democrats don’t live up to those standards, they come across as hypocrites. (Trump isn’t a hypocrite because he has no principles to violate.) I’m not arguing here Democrats would be better off if they could counter Trump by committing crimes or violating major ethical norms. It’s more basic than that: Democrats face far greater penalties for even minor acts like expressing disrespect or stretching the truth. (Just consider the pressure Democrats were under to attend Trump’s inauguration even though there was good reason not to go so as not to lend legitimacy to a fascist’s rise to power. On the other hand, no one would have expected Trump to attend had he lost.) That limits Democrats’ ability to check Trump, which is difficult enough already given how low Trump is willing to go. In sum, people expect better of the Democrats than Trump, and Democrats pay the price for that.
Democrats can’t pick fights over the little things. Every president makes his fair share of goofs. That’s inevitable given how much time they spend in the spotlight. Trump, however, does a lot of dumb little things, so many in fact that the late night shows could put together a presidency’s worth of gaffes and bizarro behavior by drawing on nothing more than a month’s worth of clips and social media posts. These episodes are self-owns that should, little by little, chip away at Trump’s prestige. They should be fair game for Democrats, too, since Trump produces them in bulk. Any president who behaves as stupidly and ridiculously as Trump regularly does—suggesting, therefore, that Trump’s stupidity and ridiculousness is not an aberration but a personal characteristic—deserves to be mocked.
Yet Democrats pay a political price for calling him out for this sort of stuff. Once again, people expect this kind of behavior from Trump and consider it par for the course. Democrats, on the other hand, face a penalty for dwelling on it rather than letting it slide. Renaming the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America is a manifestly stupid, petty, and pointless thing to do, but Democrats have for the most part kept quiet on the matter. They’ve done so not only because it’s a trap (Trump would respond, “Why do you prefer Mexico over America”) that will turn into a mud fight (the sort of fight Trump excels at) but because voters will wonder why Democrats are wasting their time on such a stupid little thing (never mind that Trump authored the stupid little thing in the first place.) All of which means Trump gets away with doing stupid things both big and small.
Democrats have branded themselves as “out of touch.” Democrats came close to winning the 2024 election. If any one of a dozen variables shifted even slightly their way last fall, it could be Republicans experiencing an existential crisis right now as they contemplate a bleak, post-MAGA future. Parties have lost presidential elections in landslides and come back four years later to win the White House.
Democrats are wise to review what happened in 2024 to try to figure out how they could have performed better. A healthy party will do that. What is dumb, however, is for everyone affiliated with the Democratic Party to constantly declare all the various ways in which Democrats are “out of touch” with the American electorate. When Democrats do that, they do the Republicans’ work for them. There are certainly things Democrats need to fix, and Democrats can have that conversation, but when Democrats constantly tell voters that the party doesn’t relate to them, don’t be surprised if voters take their word for it and start tuning the party out. The political environment is tough enough already without Democrats compounding their own misery.
Hopefully, this has been a clarifying exercise. By identifying the factors that are making it so difficult for Democrats to operate in this political environment, the party can begin devising ways to push back more effectively against Trump, Musk, and their Republican cronies. Perhaps you’ve come up with some ideas of your own based on this list. I’ve reached a few general conclusions of my own, which I’ll share briefly:
Democrats need to go on offense. A lot of these challenges revolve around Democrats defending someone or something. That’s the wrong posture to have. Democrats need to stop reacting to Trump and find ways to take the fight to him. For example, instead of defending USAID in front of USAID’s headquarters in DC, Democrats need to put themselves in front of the 31,000 tons of grain that are going to waste in Houston because Musk eliminated international food assistance programs. Do the same for any local Meals on Wheels or Head Start program that still hasn’t had its funding restored. Additionally, open new lines of attack to put Trump on the defensive. Democrats can go on offense on issues like grocery prices, bird flu, and the way Trump (and his family; where’s Don Jr.’s laptop?) personally profits from the presidency.
Develop a positive agenda with a positive message. Bill Clinton was “the man from Hope”. Barack Obama promised “Hope and Change”. Democrats are always at their best when they project uplift and optimism. Give Americans a party they’ll want to be a part of and support.
Rather than slam Trump for every ethical violation he commits, create an ethics program the party can run on and enact once Democrats regain power. Attacking Trump every time he breaks a norm or law just makes Democrats look like scolds playing a political game. Instead, offer the American people a new social contract with a plan to strengthen political ethical standards. Emphasize how the ethics program would bind all future presidents, Republican and Democratic. For instance, propose a future constitutional amendment that would curtail the president’s pardon power in order to prevent what both Trump and Biden did last month. As for Trump’s misconduct, Democrats should state their disapproval but place the burden on Republicans to do something about it.
Figure out ways to speed up government action. Citizens need to see more immediate results from government. When Democrats return to power, they need to be ready to quickly deliver on their legislative accomplishments. We can’t have another infrastructure bill that takes years upon years to become a reality in people’s lives. Prove to Americans that government works and can change things for the better.
Embrace creativity. MAGAism won’t be defeated by relying on a traditional political playbook. Democrats need a novel, contemporary approach.
I’d also encourage Democrats to stop slamming their own party and acknowledge their party’s strengths. It’s a good thing the party is committed to good governance and a multicultural America. Democrats are in a tough spot right now, but at the end of the day, it’s those strengths that will help pull them through this moment.
Signals and Noise
“Presidents May Not Unilaterally Dismantle Government Agencies” by Peter M. Shane (The Atlantic)
“The Hidden Costs of Musk’s Washington Misadventure” (Interview with Max Stier) by Franklin Foer (The Atlantic)
“Trump, Musk and America are Headed for a Very Rude Awakening” by Philip Bump (Washington Post)
“Trumpflation” by Annie Lowrey (The Atlantic)
“How the Trade War Could Expand Beyond Tariffs” by Peter R. Orszag (Washington Post)
“Trump is on the Wrong Side of History by Design” by Jamelle Bouie (New York Times)