Having closely watched congressional developments over the last few weeks, I’ve concluded that one much-discussed Democratic tactic for dealing with Trump 2.0 is probably mistaken, as I explained at New York:
No one is going to rank Mike Johnson among the great arm-twisting Speakers of the House, like Henry Clay, Tom Reed, Sam Rayburn, or even Nancy Pelosi. Indeed, he still resembles Winston Churchill’s description of Clement Atlee as “a modest man with much to be modest about.”
But nonetheless, in the space of two weeks, Johnson has managed to get two huge and highly controversial measures through the closely divided House: a budget resolution that sets the stage for enactment of Donald Trump’s entire legislative agenda in one bill, then an appropriations bill keeping the federal government operating until the end of September while preserving the highly contested power of Trump and his agents to cut and spend wherever they like.
Despite all the talk of divisions between the hard-core fiscal extremists of the House Freedom Caucus and swing-district “moderate” Republicans, Johnson lost just one member — the anti-spending fanatic and lone wolf Thomas Massie of Kentucky — from the ranks of House Republicans on both votes. As a result, he needed not even a whiff of compromise with House Democrats (only one of them, the very Trump-friendly Jared Golden of Maine, voted for one of the measures, the appropriations bill).
Now there are a host of factors that made this impressive achievement possible. The budget-resolution vote was, as Johnson kept pointing out to recalcitrant House Republicans, a blueprint for massive domestic-spending cuts, not the cuts themselves. Its language was general and vague enough to give Republicans plausible deniability. And even more deviously, the appropriations measure was made brief and unspecific in order to give Elon Musk and Russ Vought the maximum leeway to whack spending and personnel to levels far below what the bill provided (J.D. Vance told House Republicans right before the vote that the administration reserved the right to ignore the spending the bill mandated entirely, which pleased the government-hating HFC folk immensely). And most important, on both bills Johnson was able to rely on personal lobbying from key members of the administration, most notably the president himself, who had made it clear any congressional Republican who rebelled might soon be looking down the barrel of a Musk-financed MAGA primary opponent. Without question, much of the credit Johnson is due for pulling off these votes should go to his White House boss, whose wish is his command.
But the lesson Democrats should take from these events is that they cannot just lie in the weeds and expect the congressional GOP to self-destruct owing to its many divisions and rivalries. In a controversial New York Times op-ed last month, Democratic strategist James Carville argued Democrats should “play dead” in order to keep a spotlight on Republican responsibility for the chaos in Washington, D.C., which might soon extend to Congress:
“Let the Republicans push for their tax cuts, their Medicaid cuts, their food stamp cuts. Give them all the rope they need. Then let dysfunction paralyze their House caucus and rupture their tiny majority. Let them reveal themselves as incapable of governing and, at the right moment, start making a coordinated, consistent argument about the need to protect Medicare, Medicaid, worker benefits and middle-class pocketbooks. Let the Republicans crumble, let the American people see it, and wait until they need us to offer our support.”
Now to be clear, Congressional GOP dysfunction could yet break out; House and Senate Republicans have struggled constantly to stay on the same page on budget strategy, the depth of domestic-spending cuts, and the extent of tax cuts. But as the two big votes in the House show, their three superpowers are (1) Trump’s death grip on them all, (2) the willingness of Musk and Vought and Trump himself to take the heat for unpopular policies, and (3) a capacity for lying shamelessly about what they are doing and what it will cost. Yes, ultimately, congressional Republicans will face voters in November 2026. But any fear of these elections is mitigated by the realization that thanks to the landscape of midterm races, probably nothing they can do will save control of the House or forfeit control of the Senate. So Republicans have a lot of incentives to follow Trump in a high-speed smash-and-grab operation that devastates the public sector, awards their billionaire friends with tax cuts, and wherever possible salts the earth to make a revival of good government as difficult as possible. Democrats have few ways to stop this nihilistic locomotive. But they may be fooling themselves if they assume it’s going off the rails without their active involvement.
Here is something that would help our cause:
PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS
If you like to call yourself a liberal, please don’t. It does not help the Democratic party by using that term publicly.
“Liberal” is a terribly self-defeating word. It has negative connotations from the 1960’s-70’s when it was associated with liberal spending on welfare programs, culminating in the 80’s with Reagan’s assertion that black “Welfare Queens are driving Cadillac’s.”
Liberals created welfare and over time it has been associated with being too free with spending the government’s money. Most Americans do agree that we should be conservative in managing our own personal finances as well as the government’s use of our tax money.
It is more difficult to convince an undecided independent voter by using the term “liberal” than by replacing that term with one that carries a lot less negative baggage, “Progressive.”
Progressive is a much better term because its meaning is associated with the only constant law in the universe, which is “change.” Progressive or change-minded means we should not keep repeating the policies of the past over and over, as “Regressives” (Republicans) are wont to do. To achieve a better society, we need to have policies which “progress” along with the advancement of the constantly changing times. When progressive policies don’t keep up with the changing times, Republican “regressive” actions result, and we stay stuck in the past.
Now let me make it perfectly clear that I am not apologizing for being a liberal.
I am a proud liberal and it is o.k. to use that term among us.
But when we are talking to people, who’s politics we do not know,
I strongly recommend we use the term Progressive.
The truth is that there really
is no difference in the meaning of the two terms.
But, “Progressive,” will get us more votes.
Lyndon Johnson’s quipped, “Democrats look ahead through the windshield while Republicans continue to gaze in the rearview mirror.” “True, true, true”, as Harry Truman was fond of saying.
So, I would ask that all Democrats (candidates and activists) stop using the word “liberal” and in its place, always use the term “progressive.” And to drive the point home, we need to stop referring to Republicans as Conservatives and call them REGRESSIVES. Because they truly “are always looking in the rear-view mirror.”
This is not just a matter of semantics. It is a matter of dead serious political consequence. It is an important sociological fact which affects voting behavior consciously or unconsciously. And semantics aside, isn’t it true that only voting behavior matters!
It might take a while before the word “regressive” is absorbed into our lexicon. But if we all keep using it, it will.
WORDS MATTER.
WORDS ARE POWERFUL,
MORE POWERFUL THAN THE SWORD.
Wendell H. Williams
Former Democratic Nominee
U.S. Congress (CA10)
Does anyone believe a product is new or improved just because the ad agency printed “New! Improved!” on the wrapper? The term “liberal” became pejorative because liberal policies failed on issues like crime, education, inflation, taxation, illegal immigration and energy. If we offer the voters the same policies under a new label, the term “progressive” will soon be as pejorative as “liberal” has become.
No Democrat in a competitive race calls himself or herself a “liberal” or a “progressive.” They know, if they have any sense, that the only political labels that matter for winning or losing elections are “Republicans” and “Democrats.” The relatively low-information voters and swing voters who decide competitive elections have little or no clear conception of the meaning of “liberal,” “progressive,” “left-wing” “right-wing,” “fascist” or “semi-fascist.” They just know they’ll have a choice between “Republicans” and “Democrats.”
That fact calls for GENERIC anti-Republican attack ads and messaging as the focus of Democratic campaigning. Ads that damage the Republican BRAND as a whole. Here in Pennsylvania we’re seeing a constant barrage of John Fetterman campaign ads attacking Dr. Oz for his personal weaknesses — his mansions, his super-rich lifestyle, his not being a Pennsylvanian. All legitimate attacks. But they don’t help other Democrats running in competitive Pennsylvania races, including state legislative candidates whose names swing voters will never recognize.
A barrage of generic anti-Republican attack ads that damage the Republican brand and use the term “Republican” to define those who will deny women and girls the ability to make decisions about abortion and their personal lives and who will empower and protect the super-rich would help Democrats up and down the ticket.
The simple message “Republicans say it’s not your body, it’s theirs. Vote them out” defines the choice for midterm voters, especially women, suburbanites and young people, as well as any pro-Democratic message could. And it uses the term that matters most — “Republicans.”
We might see that type of ad from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund or similar groups this fall. But we’re not seeing them here so far. And we need to.
So basically, it will come down to turnout. If white college grads turn out in higher numbers, the way they usually do, and non college whites turn in lower rates, the way they usually do, then it’s a major advantage for the Democrats.