The reaction among Democrats to Donald Trump’s return to power has been significantly more subdued than what we saw in 2016 after the mogul’s first shocking electoral win. The old-school “resistance” is dead, and it’s not clear what will replace it. But Democratic elected officials are developing new strategies for dealing with the new realities in Washington. Here are five distinct approaches that have emerged, even before Trump’s second administration has begun.
Some Democrats are so thoroughly impressed by the current power of the MAGA movement they are choosing to surrender to it in significant respects. The prime example is Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, the onetime fiery populist politician who is now becoming conspicuous in his desire to admit his party’s weaknesses and snuggle up to the new regime. The freshman and one-time ally of Bernie Sanders has been drifting away from the left wing of his party for a good while, particularly via his vocally unconditional backing for Israel during its war in Gaza. But now he’s making news regularly for taking steps in Trump’s direction.
Quite a few Democrats publicly expressed dismay over Joe Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter, but Fetterman distinguished himself by calling for a corresponding pardon for Trump over his hush-money conviction in New York. Similarly, many Democrats have discussed ways to reach out to the voters they have lost to Trump. Fetterman’s approach was to join Trump’s Truth Social platform, which is a fever swamp for the president-elect’s most passionate supporters. Various Democrats are cautiously circling Elon Musk, Trump’s new best friend and potential slayer of the civil-service system and the New Deal–Great Society legacy of federal programs. But Fetterman seems to want to become Musk’s buddy, too, exchanging compliments with him in a sort of weird courtship. Fetterman has also gone out of his way to exhibit openness to support for Trump’s controversial Cabinet nominees even as nearly every other Senate Democrat takes the tack of forcing Republicans to take a stand on people like Pete Hegseth before weighing in themselves.
It’s probably germane to Fetterman’s conduct that he will be up for reelection in 2028, a presidential-election year in a state Trump carried on November 5. Or maybe he’s just burnishing his credentials as the maverick who blew up the Senate dress code.
Other Democrats are being much more selectively friendly to Trump, searching for “common ground” on issues where they believe he will be cross-pressured by his wealthy backers and more conventional Republicans. Like Fetterman, these Democrats — including Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren — tend to come from the progressive wing of the party and have longed chafed at the centrist economic policies advanced by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and, to some extent, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. They’ve talked about strategically encouraging Trump’s “populist” impulses on such issues as credit-card interest and big-tech regulation, partly as a matter of forcing the new president and his congressional allies to put up or shut up.
So the idea is to push off a discredited Democratic Establishment, at least on economic issues, and either accomplish things for working-class voters in alliance with Trump or prove the hollowness of his “populism.”
Colorado governor Jared Solis has offered a similar strategy of selective cooperation by praising the potential agenda of Trump HHS secretary nominee, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as helpfully “shaking up” the medical and scientific Establishment.
At the other end of the spectrum, some centrist Democrats are pushing off what they perceive as a discredited progressive ascendancy in the party, especially on culture-war issues and immigration. The most outspoken of them showed up at last week’s annual meeting of the avowedly nonpartisan No Labels organization, which was otherwise dominated by Republicans seeking to demonstrate a bit of independence from the next administration. These include vocal critics of the 2024 Democratic message like House members Jared Golden, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, Ritchie Torres, and Seth Moulton, along with wannabe 2025 New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Josh Gottheimer (his Virginia counterpart, Abigail Spanberger, wasn’t at the No Labels confab but is similarly positioned ideologically).
From a strategic point of view, these militant centrists appear to envision a 2028 presidential campaign that will take back the voters Biden won in 2020 and Harris lost this year.
We’re beginning to see the emergence of a faction of Democrats that is willing to cut policy or legislative deals with Team Trump in order to protect some vulnerable constituencies from MAGA wrath. This is particularly visible on the immigration front; some congressional Democrats are talking about cutting a deal to support some of Trump’s agenda in exchange for continued protection from deportation of DREAMers. Politico reports:
“The prize that many Democrats would like to secure is protecting Dreamers — Americans who came with their families to the U.S. at a young age and have since been protected by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program created by President Barack Obama in 2012.
“Trump himself expressed an openness to ‘do something about the Dreamers’ in a recent ‘Meet the Press’ interview. But he would almost certainly want significant policy concessions in return, including border security measures and changes to asylum law that Democrats have historically resisted.”
On a broader front, the New York Times has found significant support among Democratic governors to selectively cooperate with the new administration’s “mass deportation” plans in exchange for concessions:
“In interviews, 11 Democratic governors, governors-elect and candidates for the office often expressed defiance toward Mr. Trump’s expected immigration crackdown — but were also strikingly willing to highlight areas of potential cooperation.
“Several balanced messages of compassion for struggling migrants with a tough-on-crime tone. They said that they were willing to work with the Trump administration to deport people who had been convicted of serious crimes and that they wanted stricter border control, even as they vowed to defend migrant families and those fleeing violence in their home countries, as well as businesses that rely on immigrant labor.”
While the Democrats planning strategic cooperation with Trump are getting a lot of attention, it’s clear the bulk of elected officials and activists are more quietly waiting for the initial fallout from the new regime to develop while planning ahead for a Democratic comeback. This is particularly true among the House Democratic leadership, which hopes to exploit the extremely narrow Republican majority in the chamber (which will be exacerbated by vacancies for several months until Trump appointees can be replaced in special elections) on must-pass House votes going forward, while looking ahead with a plan to aggressively contest marginal Republican-held seats in the 2026 midterms. Historical precedents indicate very high odds that Democrats can flip the House in 2026, bringing a relatively quick end to any Republican legislative steamrolling on Trump’s behalf and signaling good vibes for 2028.
The comments by Sagacious make more sense to me than do Cynthia Tucker’s arguments. If Democrats take comfort from the polls that show them preferred over Republicans, then they should heed the warnings from the same polls that show an overwhelming majority of all Americans, Democrats included, object to unchecked illegal immigration and the continued bestowing of benefits on non-citizens, such as a New York driver’s license. Tucker ruins much of her argument by bringing up the straw man issue of forced expulsion of the 12 to 20 million illegals said to already be in the U.S. No rational opponent of the so called comprehensive solution to illegal immigration suggests rounding up illegals and sending them back en mass. The problem is that no national Democrat has even come up with a plan that really stops future illegal immigration. Where are the proposed new laws that put employers who hire illegals in prison? Where are the proposals to reimburse states and cities for what they are having to spend to control illegal immigration because the federal government has abdicated its responsibilities. Democrats may think they can prevail on this issue by taking the so called “high road”, but for citizens who think this is an important issue, they only drive them back into the arms of the Republicans or force them to sit on their hands.
One thing that Turner misses in this essay is that the sixties were a time of financial prosperity for Americans. Jobs were plentiful and people beleived they could succeed with hard work.
The new millenial does not at all have economic prosperity for vast numbers of working Americans, consequently they are unwilling to share the meager resources available to eek out a living for themselves. Many have lost their jobs and homes.
We may be a nation of immigrants but America is in a self-preservation mode, families are unable to feed themselves, they do not have health insurance and education is deplorable in terms of inadequate funding for children of American citizens.
For this reason the noble reasons for immigration will fall on deaf ears. Too many Americans have seen their jobs outsourced or unions busted with ‘immigrant labor’ destroying the unions as a new labor pool willing to accept menial wages that do not provide an American standard of living wage. Too many Americans have seen the influx of immigrant children into the education system crowding out needed programs for their children to meet the language and learning needs of immigrants. Too many Americans can’t pay for their own children to go to college and are outrage to have to consider making immigrant children who graduate from the public school system eligible for federal loans. The healthcare system is overwhelmed with immigrant patients without insurance and that deprives Americans who are waiting behind them in the ER for their own healthcare. Americans are angry and destitute with the harshness of the economics which will not allow a single wage earner to support a family. Individuals have to work 2 jobs just to survive and that leaves no time for a ‘life’ to enjoy family and their kids.
At this time in our history Americans are only willing to choose hope over fear, tolerance over division and the beloved community over bigotry for their OWN needs. To suggest they give the food off their plates to immigrants will create a huge backlash.
Immigration is a losing issue for Democrats and they should NOT attempt to stand up on this issue, as it is the WRONG time to do so.
The principles are right but the timing is completely wrong. Americans will give when they have enough for themselves to SHARE right now is NOT that time. Americans are not willing to share or offer helping hands because they are struggling to keep for themselves afloat.
The best idea to offer illegal immigrants is to go into the military and use that as a route to earn citizenship. At least then they will only be competing with families who also volunteer to give the ultimate sacrifice to this country.
Great idea Tucker…wrong time.
there’s another as yet unspoken argument that ought to be made by those proposing a progressive immigration policies and it begins with the question of “why would people risk their lives and be separated from their homes and families to come to the US to work at backbreaking jobs for menial wages?” the answer is simple: they do not see a future for themselves in their native homelands. a progressive immigration policy goes hand in hand with a progressive trade policy that lifts up the living standards of our trading partners and encourages their entrepreneurial and risk taking people (what else can the journey to the US be called beside a highly risky entrepreneurial venture built on optimism) to stay home and build up their own economies and societies. but that would of course necessitate shaking off the moneyed wing of the party and its unclear that the dems in leadership positions have the “brass balls” to do that (yes, that is an implicit reference to rahm emmanuel).