Reports of the demise of the Democrat Party: are they premature or not?
Political fortunes are strange. A political party can go bankrupt of ideas slowly and then all at once. It certainly seems as though that’s happened to the Democrats.
Their formerly-appealing ideas – appealing to slightly over half the country for many years – went like this: Trump is a demon; Republicans are racist, xenophobic, homophobes who are out to hurt poor people and everyone except the GOP’s greedy fat-cat supporters; Democrats are the truth-tellers and all the rest is “without evidence.”
Somewhere along the line that message got stale. Maybe it was the naked injustice of the lawfare charges against Trump and the left’s relentless pursuit of them. Maybe it was four years of denial of the reality of a cognitively-challenged president. Maybe it was the preposterous insistence that biological men should be able to compete against women just by declaring themselves to be women. Maybe it was the wars that happened on Biden’s watch, or the ignominy of the Afghanistan withdrawal. Maybe it was that young people like to rebel, and after being force-fed so much leftism, supporting conservatives becomes rebelliousness.
And maybe it’s also the utter ridiculousness of the current crop of Democrats, such as this:
Tensions between prominent Democrat leaders grew Friday, as former Speaker Nancy Pelosi rebuked Senate Leader Chuck Schumer for caving on the Republican continuing resolution (CR). At the same time, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries refused to comment on his future as a leader.
The striking remarks by Pelosi (D-CA) and the lack of response by Jeffries (D-NY) speak volumes about how disappointed they are with Schumer’s actions. …
The remarkable level of disarray and infighting in the Democratic party has been simmering for a while, but Schumer’s offer to go along with the CR and temporarily keep the government open appears to have been a bridge too far for some.
The Democrats have long operated as though messaging is the key to victory – that, plus demographics and identity group voting. Both things did not work in 2024. Anyone who actually listened to Kamala Harris’ interviews could see that she was struggling to say anything of substance, and kept repeating memorized talking points that didn’t necessarily have much to do with the questions being asked. People knew that inflation was hurting them in the supermarkets, and no amount of pointing to figures that the rate of inflation had slowed could tell them there wasn’t a problem. Trump’s supporters had never deserted him, but in 2024 they got assistance even from some Black and Hispanic men, who decided that Trump would be a better bet. That in particular probably shook Democrat operatives to their cores.
Not all that long ago Democrats looked invincible. A lot of people on the right who believed the 2020 election was won by cheating also believed there never would be another Republican victory. It also looked as though Trump might be going to prison. But look what happened instead. The reversal – beginning, I believe, with Trump’s surviving the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania – has been stunning. I don’t think the Democrats know what hit them.
But as I see it, Trump’s success in consolidating support during his term will depend on results. He certainly gets A for effort so far; it’s been a whirlwind. But in a way – and forgive the mixed metaphor – it’s a high-wire act. Almost everything Trump does has been high-risk. He will have to produce: for example,ceasefires that don’t offend either side too much; the reduction of inflation, fraud, and waste; the clean-up of agency partisanship and persecution of political enemies without unjustly persecuting his enemies; and the end of unchecked open borders and the deportation of criminal illegal aliens (he’s already made a good showing there).
How forgiving will the American people be if all those things don’t happen? How many people will want the pendulum to swing right back to the left? I don’t know the answer. I just know that I cheer for every good result he can accomplish, because I do not want to see the left regain power.
Neo: I think I’m 3-4 years older than you so that gives us a historic view that justifies your caution. We (you & me) have seen these things go in cycles for so long that so we don’t get too wired either way. Examples: after Reagan & G. H.W Bush, the Dems were forlorn. G.H.W. was such a miserable president that we had 8 years of Clinton. Then when G.W. Bush was so awful with his never ending wars that a mile-wide-and-inch-deep phony like Obama was able to do what Trump just did only even more so. I clearly remember James Carville crowing “we’re gonna be in power for the next 40 years!” Two years later (big push from the Tea Party) and we had the biggest turnover in the House since the 1930s. (You can really call’em James!) And so it will go, as you said, as long as Trump gets results we’ll be OK
Republicans looked all but dead in 2009. Bush left office with an approval rate in the 30’s and Democrats’ “coalition of the ascendant” was supposed to create a permanent majority. Well, Democrats’ trifecta lasted exactly two years. Within five years the GOP held large majorities in both houses of Congress and within eight had a trifecta of their own.
It could go just as quickly for Democrats. I’m not even convinced that they would have to abandon their views on immigration or trans issues. If Trump starts a war or prompts a deep recession, Democrats will waltz right back into power.
I think Trump is smart to push change as rapidly as he has been doing. Some prices have already begun to edge downward. It’s possible that, with results, Dems won’t be able to recapture the House as so frequently happens in midterms. They’d have to have a believable campaign issue to do it, and so far they haven’t found one.
Except we now know our previous worst case estimate of the looting of the treasury has been shown to be wildly optimistic and sexual mutilation of minors seems like a poor hill to die on.
And the seasons they go round and round
And the painted ponies go up and down
We’re captive on the carousel of time
–Joni Mitchell, “The Circle Game”
_______________________________
Democrats will put themselves back together, but I think it’s going to take a while.
It took them 12 years of Reagan/Bush for Clinton to triangulate his way to the White House.
First let me define my terms. Short term is less than 25 years. Long term is greater than fifty. In the short term they will enjoy many resurgences. In the long term, they cannot continue as a party of the left. That is true because there is no Truth regarding the left. Their shit doesn’t work and is antithetical to human nature.
chazzand: Age gives context: I remember where I was when Kennedy was shot. I guess that makes me old (damn!) How could the 90s be 25-30 years ago???
Neither party is what they were even in 2020. I’m not sure the Dems will go under – on the other hand … where are the Whigs? For that matter, the Republicans are breaking up as well, just quietly in the background. 2028 will be interesting.
Trump’s done a lot in a very short time but something needs to be done about these lower-level judges telling the Executive branch what to do or not do … the foreman doesn’t dictate to the boss (I think I read that DJT gave orders to ignore those judges) – and some high-level, public arrests (and convictions) will be necessary soon; there have been serious crimes enough at high levels that a public example of “we’re doing something more than investigating” would calm what seems to be a bit of growing unease among DJT supporters.
The economy’s in such bad shape, the administration needs to force a recession soon – both because a re-balance of the out-of-control spending and money-printing is needed and a chance to allow a return to the new normal before the mid-terms would be a good idea. Stock market shows hints that may be in process. Cash rather than stocks may be a good idea, sooner than later.
Note that saving a few billion here and there looks good (and every little bit helps) but not so much in the face of trillions of dollars; $1B out of $1T is the equivalent of $1 out of $1000.
But I’m just a recluse that spouts off a lot of nonsense when the urge strikes. In any case, I suspect it’s a good time to keep one’s powder dry; this summer could prove entertaining.
No, the Ds are far from dead. They may be wandering in th desert now, but never forget that they(the left)never give up. Politics is their religion. They are just working through the anger stage of grief.
Good analysis.
The two things that I’d highlight are 1) the limits to divisive identity group pandering and 2) candidate quality.
One could write a book about 1). I’d love to read a history book, or similar, on exactly the progression from a GOP party founded on freeing slaves and equal rights for African Americans, to the Dems at one time owning well over 90% of the black vote.
As I see it, the Dems pocketed the black demo and then moved on to the next identity group, and the next. Women’s rights, then gay rights, etc. While doing so, they can claim that “We are compassionate” and “We care about you.”
The problem comes in when the cause being championed becomes suspect.
As an example: I have a family member who is gay and quite politically active on the left. Who and what does one champion when championing gay rights? Well Hollywood and TV would suggest that there are these wholesome role models, like “Modern Family.” No doubt, that is representative of many. But my family member thinks that the whole gay community should be extoled or at least supported. So, if there is a segment that does copious amounts of drugs while engaging with a large number of sexual partners, then they need to be explicitly supported too. Needless to say, the Dems wisely avoided all that.
But now consider transgender rights. Simply stated, it’s just too difficult to support a sizeable piece of what they want without wandering into nuttiness territory.
I think this is where we are in America. A long history of great freedoms and affluence and the society has fragmented in lots of ways, and many of them are rather crazy. So if Dems want to carve off another identity group they’ve got to wade into the crazy swamp. And sensible Americans don’t want any of it. At least as a government/social restructuring.
2) I hardly need to say anything about this. However, look at the history of a JFK, or Jimmy Carter, or Bill Clinton. (LBJ was a curious example in some ways) For those presidents, one could plausibly say that they were “Oh, so brilliant” and we should all bow to their exceptionalism. Should I include Barack Obama? Perhaps. He certainly had a silver tongue to go with that Harvard degree.
And somehow the Dems end up pushing Joe Biden and Kamala Harris? Inconceivable! Joking aside, how did that happen? Maybe, just maybe… it’s because of the extreme level of corruption in the party that isn’t just tolerated, but required at this point. Or am I being hyperbolic with that one?
Pingback:MAGA Republican’s still don’t get it!?! - Karmi's Musings & Tech
…a return to the new normal before the mid-terms would be a good idea. Stock market shows hints that may be in process. Cash rather than stocks may be a good idea,… — DT
I rather chicken heartedly bought a small piece of a gold ETF, specifically GLD, back at the end of 2022, just to focus my attention and watch. It’s doing very well in recent months. Cash, really isn’t your friend.
Tommy Jay – “Should I include Barack Obama? Perhaps. He certainly had a silver tongue to go with that Harvard degree.”
Did you not ever see one of those clips of Obama trying to handle an audience when the teleprompter failed? Brutal – earned him the sobriquet of “SCOAMF” – Stuttering Cluster*** of a Miserable Failure!
Dems ain’t goin’ away. They don’t know where they is headed, but as long as they dominate academia, they’ll be a big part of politics.
Anti-Trump will be woefully inadequate if Trump’s changes are 60-80% successful. So what are the actual ideas of the newer voices? If the ideas are mostly stuff that has failed when attempted, it won’t be popular enough to win elections.
Even an enormous rout of Dems, less than 40 senators, 30-40 fewer House Reps, even losing control of a big city or two, and the Dems stay relevant for the next election 2 years later. And Dem domination of media, less strong than before but still highly influential, will continue to spin positive for Dems.
Newsome and other Dem possibles in 2028 are already starting to explore new messages, ideas. Some in agreement with some Trump policies. 2026 will be interesting. But we’ll slowly learn more daily as it gets closer. (The sun is the same, in a relative way, but you’re older …)
“I don’t think the Democrats know what hit them.”
To the extent that this simple summation is so — and it appears to me to be very much the case — that’s no sort of prescription for the conduct of politics, whether that term “politics” is taken in its commonplace contemporary sense of specifically partisan politics, or, in the wider more traditional sense of the general relations of the governance of human communities, whoever, wherever or whenever they may be found.
And not knowing as these Democrats do not know, they’ll have a devil of a time finding a basis on which to build or re-build their aims, as it is their “principles” themselves which have led then into this dark deadend. Gonna be a hell-uv-a show watching the theoretical flounders soon to come. Couldn’t wish it on a nicer bunch of folk.
Meanwhile Trump rolls out his commonsense path and goes merrily on his way, racking up win upon win upon win. Ha! Wonder what he knows the Democrats don’t?
Per Bauxite above, a recession, which is certainly a plausible consequence of a trade war, will put the Dems right back on top. If the Republicans take DT’s advice and “force a recession,” it will happen real quick. And contra Kate, food prices aren’t going down, which is the main thing voters (including myself) see every day. That’s what Trump should be focusing on, not Ukraine or imports of French wine.