Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S chaotic reign continues. Staying abreast of the whirlwind of utterances and actions is a full-time pursuit.
Among the latest developments is the commander-in-chief’s comment, in response to an offer of a $400 million plane from the Qatari royal family which would be outfitted to serve as Air Force One and ultimately be donated to his presidential library: “I mean, I could be a stupid person saying, ‘No, we don’t want a free, very expensive airplane.’”
Despite serious legal, ethical and security issues raised by his friends and foes, President Trump appears determined to accept this gift as he traverses the Middle East. But his current attitude is liable to change quickly.
Indeed, an astonished world has witnessed an array of spectacular flip-flops. Whatever the bombastic billionaire’s stance on tariffs, fellow leaders, the key players in his inner circle or global trouble spots is today, it could be something entirely different the next. And then Trump might do a 180 the following week.
Incessant “big announcements” of the administration’s purported triumphs – some bereft of substance, like the United States/United Kingdom trade deal hailed hyperbolically as “maxed out” and “historic” by the American president and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer respectively – keep the media on their toes and dominate the international news cycle.
There is no shortage of vivid adjectives that have aptly been applied to Trump 2.0. Boring is perhaps the only one that doesn’t fit. Yet even accounting for this new unprecedented milieu and the tumult it has undeniably wrought, what the most controversial man on the planet has done since 20 January meets with the approval of 45.8% of US voters, according to aggregated opinion survey data on RealClearPolitics.com.
His numbers have ticked slightly upward after his partial retreat on tariffs. The markets are slowly recovering from the shock of so-called Liberation Day.
While President Trump provokes widespread disbelief, anger and concern beyond the borders of the US, what are his adversaries at home doing to ensure that his Republican colleagues take a hit in the 2026 midterms and when Americans choose his successor? To be blunt, Democrats are flailing. And to be equally blunt, external observers who despair at what is happening in a country they no longer understand have ample cause to be worried at the moment.
Naturally, there had to be a period of introspection after last year’s dreadful campaign. Joe Biden never should have run again. Kamala Harris was a poor replacement. These diagnoses were once disputed; they are now regarded nearly unanimously as facts. The re-emergence of each in the public sphere isn’t helping Democrats as they try and put 2024 in the rearview mirror.
It is also true that there is no face of opposition to Trumpism. There are no bona fide all-stars in the congressional leadership. The exceptionally bright and articulate ex-mayor of South Bend, Indiana and US Transportation Secretary, Pete Buttigieg, is a superb performer on television. Rumour has it that he has his sights set on another bid for the Oval Office, but his path to victory is narrow and difficult to envisage for myriad reasons, some of them profoundly regrettable.
There are other strong 2028 contenders, such as Governors Andy Beshear (Kentucky), Wes Moore (Maryland), Gavin Newsom (California) and Gretchen Whitmer (Michigan). They are apparently awaiting the results of the midterms ahead of making final decisions, defining themselves and devising their messaging.
In the interim, there is a lot of infighting. The much heralded clash of the progressive and establishment wings is to the fore in the bickering between Democratic National Committee Vice-Chair David Hogg, who wants to spend millions to “primary” incumbent Democrats to bring in a younger generation, and seasoned operative James Carville, who claims this is an “insane” gambit. The powers that be tend to concur with the latter, and a plot is afoot to oust Hogg.
When it comes to persuading the hearts and minds of the Americans who are gettable, both liberals and moderates have a point, to an extent. And the two groups – describing them thusly is admittedly an oversimplification – need to consider where they are ideologically and what the political situation is. Compromise is required in the name of bolstering their electoral prospects.
For instance, those who have embraced corporatist economics, including the North American Free Trade Agreement of the early 1990s, must recognise that their positioning has done immeasurable damage to Democrats’ popularity within the labour movement. The interests of people who toil with their hands for a living, not wealthy CEOs who can write six-figure cheques, always come first.
Simultaneously, the cultural left has to get to grips with their being well outside the mainstream of how ordinary women and men think in the territory where contests are decided. A very cogent case can be made that this explains why Donald Trump was returned to the White House. Polling from Blueprint, a Democratic firm, shows that the most frequent criticism voiced by the vital bloc of swing voters who went for Trump was that Kamala Harris was “too focused on liberal cultural issues.”
They should unite around a “back to basics” agenda of core principles. Improve access to and cut the cost of healthcare. Increase the minimum wage, defend the rights of employees and retrain the human victims of technology, globalisation and greed. Compel the rich to pay their fair share in taxes. Protect social programmes relied upon by the elderly and vulnerable. Eviscerate Trump, without being hysterical, for his misfeasance and malfeasance. Start their own “war” on colleges and universities with an unequivocal goal: the reduction of exorbitant fees. Herein lies the winning formula for Democrats.
Alienating vast swathes of Americans, be they blue collar workers in Wisconsin or pro-life Catholics in Pennsylvania, makes zero sense in a vast, incredibly diverse country with a two party system in which the choice is effectively binary. Democrats have paid a significant price for doing so.
In future, they need to do far better at being a big, open tent that appeals to many more voters across the US. Nominate candidates who are largely on board with the party platform in blue states. Nominate candidates who dissent to varying degrees and are more moderate or conservative in red states. It ain’t rocket science.
In this vein, my Dad used to put it simply: “Politics is about addition.” In recent decades, Democrats have excelled at subtraction – and one could be forgiven for deeming it a deliberate tack, such has been the dramatic shift in their priorities, the condescending preachiness of their tone and the unyielding content of their rhetoric. For me personally, it has been sad and disheartening to watch.
They may object vociferously to this assessment, yet it is the common perception. And perception has forever trumped, with apologies for the expression, reality in politics.
Democrats have to up their game. But can they?
Larry Donnelly is a Boston lawyer, a Law Lecturer at the University of Galway and a political columnist with TheJournal.ie.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say