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.
It’s a sad commentary on Democratic unity when Republicans respond more graciously to the possibility of a Hillary appointment than the unrepentant Clinton haters among the Democrats. The fact that the Obama campaign is tight-lipped when it suits them doesn’t mean they can’t be loose-lipped when it suits them, and this could well be one of those time (I supposed the Clinton camp leaked Richardson’s name too, and Rahm Emmanuel’s?). I can’t say I’m totally surprised that some Democrats are still horrified at a Hillary appointment, but I have to be a bit rueful when they act as though global warming were the occasion of a sinecure to sideline a potentially troublesome rival. By now, surely we all take climate change too seriously to park people we despise in charge of it.
Porcupine,
I do not think that the Obama team ‘leaked’ HRC’s name. This situation seems to be Classic Clinton drama vs. no drama Obama. You would think that HRC would have learned by now that they are not master strategists when it comes to Obama.
This sounds like classic WJC tactic to squeeze Bill Richardson in payback for his endorsing Obama during the primaries.
Why anyone thinks it is to the Obama camp to leak anything about HRC continues to boggle my imagination.
I hope HRC is passed over and that Richardson gets the post, despite his womanizing issues. WJC does not need a platform on the world stage to dispatch his spouse to handle his global affairs. It is very feasible that HRC will ‘decline’ due to the conflicts of interest WJC’s foreign country deals pose…and not to mention his library donors all of which would need to be a part of the 63 questions Obama requires for top cabinet posts.
SlickWillandHill have met their match in Obama he will not be bullied nor politically squeezed to their advantage.
Give Hill a policy wonk position like GlobalWarming Czar if she wants out of the Senate because there is no place for her to go there.
Point taken, sporcupine. I should have written “Cinton supporters” instead of “women” in the last graph. I’ll make the change. And to be consistent, I’ll also add “many” before Latinos.
It would have been better never to consider Hillary at all than leak she’s a top contender for State, that she’s met with Obama, and then pass her over for Richardson. Bill Richardson owes much of his foreign policy resume to the patronage of her husband, yet betrayed Hillary in the primaries. It would appear to be a calculated humiliation by Obama. Do the Clintons deserve this? I was surprised to hear that she was under consideration, but now that we know it’s been discussed, to suddenly read a new leak that her main rival is Richardson is weird. Is it too late for Richard Holbrooke? If Obama offers Hillary a chair, pulls it out from under her, and offers it to the Governor, it will be hard to blame her for getting in his way in the future.
I respectfully submit that most American women want the President-elect to choose the Secretary of State who can best serve the nation’s diplomatic goals. If Senator Clinton is that person, we’ll be delighted. If she is not that person, and she gets the job to placate some noisy activists, we’ll be disturbed.
There’s no easy way to stop feminist leaders from claiming that they speak for “women” in general.
I, however, want third parties to quit playing the game.
J.P. Green, do you really believe that most American women care more about gender representation than effective negotiation on Chinese trade, North Korean arms, and a lasting peace in the Middle East?
No, you don’t believe that.
Accordingly, please don’t write things you don’t believe. The people who are pushing for female representation are feminists, the women’s movement, advocates for gender equality. They are voices worth hearing, but they are not the voice of American women in general.
You know that, and I urge you to write in a way that matches what you know.