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.
Squeaky, I don’t think the Bush camp is giving all that much thought to Kerry on this. Their main concern is definitely the plummeting public opinion on Iraq, combined with the conventional wisdom in political/media circles having gotten to the point where only the most pro-Bush hacks are willing to say that his policy is working.
For Bush, the media’s “what’s Kerry going to do now that Bush is adopting his position” meme is a pleasant un-earned side benefit. It is happening in some circles, unfortunately. Commenter “howie” provides an irritating anecdote in the comments two posts up from this one, and also see this stupid NY Times story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/politics/campaign/26POLI.html?hp
Haggai:
That’s the strategery of this six-speech thing — force Kerry out into the open on Iraq. It’s a problem for Kerry — he doesn’t have any great ideas about what to do in Iraq because there aren’t any good options. My advice to him is to keep pointing out that a wish list is not a plan. But in the end Rove may get some traction from this. It’s risky, though. If Bush repeats last night’s performance six times, its vacuity is going to obvious even to the feeblest.
On the issue of Bush doing five more of these speeches, the Kerry campaign ought to give serious thought to a “counter-programming” strategy. In other words, plan some Kerry (or Kerry surrogate) speeches or press confernces on the same day as each of those five. Also, they might want to do some ad buys to run in selected markets at the same time to blunt their impact. They shouldn’t just passively let him use the power of the incumbency this way without a response.
I can see one scenario where “Shrub” wins (if only barely) despite a string of moderately bad news up until the eve of the elections. One, he decides he can’t win over the center so he starts pandering to his socially conservative base (gay bashing, school prayer etc.). That automatically guarantees him 40% of the vote regardless of how bad Iraq or the economy gets. Two, he launches a vicious all-out assault to smear Kerry as a Dom Perignon drinking Frog-loving sophisticate who will raise taxes and sell America to the U.N.. Three, non-partisan centrist voters will stay away in droves since they do not like the incumbent President but also dislike the Kerry character portrayed in the $200-million GOP attack ads. Four, voter turnout among the rabid political base (GOP vs. Dem. partisans) in Ohio, Florida and a handful of other states decide the outcome. Unfortunately, the Bush campaign has invested millions in getting out the vote and you can be sure Jeb Bush & co. will be doing their best to keep minorities, felons and other “unpatriotic” folks away from the polls.
I am still thinking about buying $1000 insurance against a “Shrub” victory. That way, I will at least have something to feel good about if Flyboy wins a second term in November. I would rather lose the money and see Kerry win, though … “the Chimp” is just an awful leader of the free world.
MARCU$
The really fascinating story of the past few days has been about the implications of the Chalabi and INC reletionship with Iranian Intelligence. The best story I’ve seen today is in the LA Times — op/ed section, at least the author knew some 20th century Espionage History, made reference to the Leninist “Trust” — but not to how the knowledge of the principles of the 1920’s Tust so spooked James Jesus Angleton that in the 60’s and early 70’s, he pretty much took down active agents in the USSR. Ironicxally it was Seymour Hersh in 1974 who published the investigative piece in the NYTimes that ended Angleton’s run. Bush Senior got in on the rebuilding at CIA during his year long directorship in 1976. Tiz ironic Bush Jr and all his neo-con’s apparently are the total victims of the Iranian version of this kind of false flag operation.
The papers are full today of juicy lines from high level former spooks congratualating the Iranians on their tradecraft.
While I’ve seen several efforts at analysis along these lines — I suspect that once the story is clear to people who have not read Intelligence History get the short but accurate version — I can’t see how Bush survives anything. In essence what the whole gang did was spend more than 200 billion of our money and over 780 lives at this juncture, to defeat the only major enemy of Iran and the Mullahs. The whole Neo-con operation resulted in that end due to the role Chalabi apparently played vis a vis Tehran.
Yep — the Bush gang are really the grown ups!!!
James, don’t put too much stock in quick anecdotal evidence. Remember how the “Saddam bounce” from his capture was going to guarantee Bush’s re-election? It certainly boosted his poll numbers, but then it all disappeared within two or three weeks, since events on the ground in Iraq didn’t get any better. Speeches are even less likely to give Bush any real boost, not compared to the capture of America’s public enemy #1 for most of the past decade (the few months after 9/11 excepted, when we actually realized who the real threat was). As DR has been documenting, public approval of Bush on Iraq is extremely low, in the 30s in some polls. A few rhetorical flourishes aren’t going to be enough to change that in any meaningful way.
One fear that I do have is the lazy horse-race dynamic of the press. Bush gives these speeches where he says he’s a strong leader, staying the course, fighting for freedom, etc. In reality, his policies are constantly shifting and startingly short on details. But, some in the media seem always determined to spin this as “Bush is moving closer to Kerry’s positions, so what’s Kerry going to do?” That’s a recipe for a totally fraudulent public discourse: Bush pretends to be a steel-jawed and determined war-time leader, while the press somehow turns his flip-flopping and incompetence into A STORY ABOUT KERRY. I’m definitely concerned about that.
Haggai, I don’t think the press is as skeptical as you think (they sure weren’t on CNN last night). Anyway, the public seems to be responding on cue, if the once-increasingly skeptical AOL dittoheads are any clue (they usually have 3 negative; 3 positive in “What America Thinks” this time they only had 2 negative).
“My president did a great job last night. God Bless him and God Bless America. We have a long fight, but we will win.”
–
“Bush’s foreign policy has done irreparable harm and has proven that every negative stereotype of America is exactly right.”
–
“I believe we should stand behind Bush and support him. He’s an amazing man [and has] courage and conviction.”
–
“Congratulations on presenting a fine, clear, workable and honorable plan. I’m proud to have you lead our country.”
–
“After three years, one thing is abundantly clear. Bush talks a good game, but there is no substance to back up his words.”
–
“Don’t you people have the decency to stand by your president? Bush has done a great job.”
–
I also don’t think that I can overestimate how many people fell for this “evil LIBERAL media didn’t run our President’s speech, they’re scared of the truth!!!” meme. I have heard this again and again and again, and it seems to be having a positive effect for him.
It will take more than this to help him in the polls but if this is only the 1st speech out of 6 then you’re going to definitely see his polls shoot back up. This isn’t about what the media thinks anyway. He wants to get the confused and scared Americans back in line.
I wasn’t exactly saying that the press will let Bush get away with it. They let him get away with more than they should, but this isn’t the run-up to the war anymore, with Chalabi-sourced WMD stories blanketing the cover of the NY Times. By and large, the press is a lot more skeptical now.
As Haggai mentions, the press will let Bush get away with anything he wants. That’s the problem. I don’t think this was a good speech but in the past he’s given worse speeches that were praised to the skies. So most likely, this speech will be a big help to him. What annoys me the most is how many people I hear saying ‘the awful liberal networks didn’t run our President’s speech!!!’ falling right for the trap Rove set, as always (he didn’t ask the networks to run the speech).
As long as Kerry remains undefined, it’s still Bush’s race to lose.
” . . . Bush’s approval rating on handling the war on terrorism been dropping like a stone,” No, no, no. his rating is dropping like Iraq. (get it?)
george II..wil follow in georgeI’s foot stumbles…another iraq another fiasco..
Hopefully that approval rating will dip below %40.
James K Galbraith brings up an excellent point in this article in Salon:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/05/22/polls/index.html
Since Bush (literally) took the office, his favorables have been on a downward spiral, with the exception of the 3 poll spikes, 911, the start of the war and capturing Saddam.
“will the administration successfully divert attention with deflective talk of “stay the course” and “resolve?” ”
Tim, I think it’s pretty safe to say that the answer is no, not at this point. The public mood has caught up with the consistently awful news from Iraq, and it’s really gone south on Bush, as the poll numbers keep deteriorating for him with each passing week. “Stay the course” doesn’t work when you get to the point where most people are convinced that the course we’re on is failing.
To be optimistic about it, I think Bush might be hoist on his own petard here, since changing course in a dramatic way would be nearly impossible to spin with his preferred image, show-resolve/stay-the-course etc. Meaning that even if he does change things up a lot and improve the Iraq policy (yeah, right, fat chance), he might already be assured of sustaining serious political damage either way–either stick with the current plan and look stubborn and clueless in the face of serious trouble, or reverse course and expose the entire “strong war-time leader/doesn’t waver” persona as a house of cards.
A bit of pessimism might be in order, in that Bush has already gotten away with a fairly major flip-flop or two. Most notably, the direct outsourcing of the June 30 transition plan to UN envoy Brahimi, an almost direct contravention of the previous 12 months of administration disdain for any serious UN involvement. But the press, instead of greeting this near-180-degree flip-flop by asking, “why didn’t the administration do this 12 months ago, like Kerry and the Dems have been saying all along?”, decided to play the story as, “what will Kerry do, now that Bush is undercutting Kerry’s position on internationalizing the Iraq effort?” %^#in’ press corps really gets on my nerves sometimes.
Interesting that it seems the public is connecting the WOT more directly with Iraq. The administration may well be painted into a corner by having equated the two if the public has decided that as goes one, so goes the other.
I’d rather not be in the position of seeing a poll that says that a strong majority of Americans think that we’re headed in the wrong direction… and feel good about Kerry’s prospect for election. I truly wish that the country was headed in the right direction. It’s obvious that we aren’t.
What got us to this point? Will the press go back in time and examine the Iraq mess and trace key decisions back to the administration? Will voters connect the dots? Or will the administration successfully divert attention with deflective talk of “stay the course” and “resolve?”
Who can answer: What is the plan to get out of Iraq? and… when??
I hope Kerry can.
It looks like Bush will need more than a great speech tonight. To date, I don’t think he’s given one in his 3+ years in office, so I’m not overly worried about that. The wrong track numbers are the numbers that stick and he’s now as bad as, or worse than, his father on this item. All Kerry needs to do is come up with an absolute great Veep candidate now. Since the Repugs cannot campaign on their main issue (war on terror), they’ll start blasting Kerry and his Veep left and right once the convention is over. Even if the economy is doing better, election history says that voters remember what happened six months prior to the election, and that is the high “wrong track” numbers when it comes to the economy. It certainly is great to see this happening to the Right. Their lies and favoritism is coming back to haunt them. Let’s hope it stays this way through the election.
Looks like the Dems should take a play form the GOP ’94 play book and come up with their “Contract with America”.