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.
AS AMERICA AND the rest of the world look on – often astonished and dismayed at the whirlwind of impactful events and controversial utterances – at Trump 2.0, Republican operatives are already focusing their attention on the twilight of his presidency and the future trajectory of their party. Getting beyond the cult of personality around President Trump will be no mean accomplishment.
Simultaneously, the opposition have their own quandaries. They have developed a habit of doing politics poorly. And although the November midterms should produce good results for them, the Democrats are increasingly divided.
Let’s start by considering the GOP’s path.
The sudden death of Senator Lindsey Graham and apparently grave illness of his colleague, Senator Mitch McConnell, has made some recall that each was a traditional conservative, at least prior to Trump’s bursting on the scene about a decade ago.
Both were staunch internationalists, unafraid to deploy the United States armed forces globally in pursuit of myriad aims, generally open to immigrants seeking to realise their American dreams, in favour of small government and low taxes, socially conservative, imbued with a strong sense of patriotism, and possessed of a reasonably sunny disposition.
When, critics might say if, President Trump leaves the stage, it has been posited that Republicans might pivot back to that dogma. That seems highly unlikely and would be politically foolish in my view. First, the vast majority of the faithful are no longer in that space. Second, eight years of George W Bush and his failed, military industrial complex-sponsored interventions in the Middle East doomed those, such as John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012, who were on broadly the same page as their predecessor.
Third, the star of The Apprentice was cunning enough to recognise that the grassroots had fallen out of love with establishment conservatism and yearned for a radical departure: America First. That translated roughly to waging no more futile wars where the country’s national interests are not directly imperilled, tightening up the borders, relocating good-paying jobs from overseas to the US and turning back the clock to an era where, among other things, the citizenry’s collective skin complexion was lighter and the cost of living wasn’t exorbitant.
Those who lament and are genuinely frightened by this administration’s initiatives at home and abroad have every right to be. Trump has lied to and betrayed many who took a chance on him. He has also pushed way too far and forfeited a lot of the advantages he had on foreign policy, the economy and immigration.
But it is worth examining the extraordinary coalition he attracted to his side in 2024, and to the Republicans. Historically the party of wealthy elites – plenty of whom have stayed owing to tax policy – its most dependable supporters now are working-class white people, who are crucial because of the design of the US electoral system. Notwithstanding his anti-immigrant, arguably racist rhetoric, a previously unfathomable swathe of Latinos, Black men, and Asian-Americans cast ballots for Trump.
Even as he has alienated some of these converts, keeping them in the fold has to be the goal of Republicans. There is a potent message in Trumpism, freed from its and his worst excesses. Their big challenge is to determine who the most effective next messenger will be. We shall see, yet I am not sold that it is JD Vance or Marco Rubio. And for all his faults, it’s doubtful they will unearth anyone who inspires loyalty the way Trump does.
As for the Democrats, precedent and Trump’s terrible approval ratings suggest that they should do well in the forthcoming contests. It is as close to a sure thing as exists at the moment that they will take control of the US House of Representatives. The upper chamber, however, is another story. A handful of races will tell the tale.
The decision of the Maine primary electorate to anoint the manifestly flawed Graham Platner their nominee, having been endorsed by grandees who should know better, was a colossal error in judgment. Platner’s bid was initially championed by the leftist Democratic Socialists group and their similarly minded allies. Maine progressives are currently scrambling to replace the oyster farmer following his exit in the wake of the latest, gross allegation of sexual misconduct against him. They have an uphill fight.
The Michigan primary campaign – in which Abdul El-Sayed, who despite being ideologically indistinguishable has latterly sought to distance himself from the Democratic Socialists, is battling US Representative Haley Stevens – crystallises the problematic situation. A Detroit News opinion survey shows the more moderate Stevens well ahead with primary voters who are Black, non-college educated, 55 or older and those who define as traditional Democrats.
El-Sayed has large leads among highly educated whites, young people and leftists. These demographics propelled Zohran Mamdani to the mayoralty in New York City, but Middle America is an entirely different kettle of fish. There typically won’t be enough of them, and politics is a numbers game.
While either candidate could conceivably prevail in Michigan in November, Stevens is a safer choice. This is especially the case as activists who formerly identified as Democratic Socialists reveal objectives that should worry the entity they are affiliated to. They are the stuff of lethal attack ads.
In traditional media and online, these dissidents claim that, for some in the movement, the ultimate goal is to tear down the Democratic Party as it is and make it more socialist; that winning primaries against the “establishment” is equally important to the group as beating Republicans; and that young legislative staffers are dedicated above all to ensuring that the Democratic officeholders who employ them continue to tack further and further leftward, no matter if it costs them their seats. It’s a process of “enlightenment.”
Of course, Democratic Socialists are free to agitate for change from within. They are in the ascendancy and, in a society suffering badly from the effects of pay inequality, a few of their ideas are meritorious and could be beneficial additions to the party platform. But as a damning Wall Street Journal interview with the two of the would-be “architects” of Graham Platner demonstrates, they are politically naïve in the extreme, to describe them politely.
The job for Democrats at this juncture is straightforward: do whatever is necessary to get as many Americans as possible to vote for their standard-bearers in the midterms. That will entail putting expediency before purity in some instances, as hard as they may find that to stomach. Forgive my being more cynical than moral, but I’ll never fully understand why the left struggles so mightily in this regard. It comes fairly naturally to the right, as the improbable rise of Donald Trump illustrates.
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