Democrats need to face the unpleasant truth that November’s disaster was not so much a referendum on the candidates as on the electorate. How else to explain the willingness of seventy-five million Americans to return a man to the White House who was convicted criminally of fraud, civilly of sexual assault, indicted for inciting an invasion of the Capitol, was an openly cats-and-dogs racist, whose own extremely conservative national security advisors warned was a threat to his country, and all the other disgusting aspects of Trump’s persona in a nation—and a party—that has always claimed to pride itself on the maxim “character matters?”
It would be easier to swallow if, as many Democrats continue to insist, the blame could be placed on Biden, Harris, her campaign staff, or messaging, but none of those was the reason that Republicans won such a smashing victory. Nor is it productive to waste time on evaluating Trump’s promised economic and border initiatives, his embrace of toadies and conspiracy theorists, or even whether he will make his voters’ lives better or worse.
From all the post-election analyses, it seems clear that a disproportionate number of Trump voters made their choice viscerally, paying only lip service to policy questions. They may have said they thought Trump would improve the economy, but when asked for reasons, they retreated to vague generalities, unable to enunciate a single specific. (Appropriate, since Trump could not either.) A disquieting number seemed to know next to nothing beyond the extremely superficial about either candidate. Many of those who angrily evoked the Constitution had no idea what it said and expressed little interest in learning. Their knowledge of American history was a combination of distortions and outright falsehoods, many of the head-slapping variety.
When, however, Trump voters were asked about emotional hot buttons, such as transgender bathroom rights, or a perceived tsunami of migrants pouring across the border in a modern version of the Oklahoma land rush, their answer was clear and concise.
NO.
What the electorate demonstrated, in addition to profound ignorance and a willingness to tolerate hate and cruelty, was that they were demanding a halt to 2 ½ centuries of national evolution. They preferred to return to a time when discrimination was acceptable as long as someone else was the victim; American history was a largely unbroken series of triumphs, with children so taught from kindergarten on; fairness and equality were proclaimed but not practiced; and our collective ethos was derived from a convenient and hypocritical interpretation of the Bible.
If this was the society Americans were voting for, and they made that clear in down ballot races as well, how could Kamala Harris or any other Democrat have possibly won?
And so, the real question becomes where to go from here when the choice is between maintaining a set of ideals that includes striving to end discrimination; an honest telling of who we were and who we are as a people; working for genuine fairness and equality; and the end of religious hypocrisy…or winning?
Which to choose or even how to balance the two is an agonizing conundrum.
There seem to be three fundamental alternatives, none of them palatable.
The first can be described as the George McGovern approach. McGovern and those who supported him in 1972 were convinced that Nixon voters were merely misguided and working against their own interests. Democrats, they reasoned, just needed to continue to push for progressive policies and voters would eventually come around. One of McGovern’s signature initiatives was to make taxes more equitable by imposing a 77% rate on all inheritances over $1 million, which would be about $7.5 million today. This was at a time when virtually no one in the middle class had any hope of amassing an estate that large. McGovern’s crew was stunned to learn that this idea was wildly unpopular among that very middle class he assumed would be its most enthusiastic supporters. An apt parallel would be Bernie Sanders and his “Medicare for all” idea. He just cannot get himself to accept that Americans do not want government having a monopoly on health care coverage, nor likely on anything else.
The second approach would be for Democrats to recognize that the electorate has rejected even lukewarm progressivism and move right, toward the center. The question is, how much? When does altering philosophy to win elections go past moderation and become an abandonment of everything one claims to stand for?
In the coming term, Democrats in Congress will attempt to work with Republicans, making any small inroads they can. The problem is that with conservatives firmly in charge of all three branches of government, there is no need for them to compromise unless Mike Johnson runs into difficulty with his own caucus, less likely now that Matt Gaetz has departed. In most cases, Democrats will be powerless to prevent Republicans from enacting even the most extreme legislation and equally powerless to prevent it from being upheld by a Supreme Court for which the term “rule of law” has become the punchline to a bad joke.
Assuming the Republican program meets with the approval of those who elected them, how do Democrats campaign in 2026 and beyond? Do they pander to a voting bloc that they privately loathe just to try to win—as Trump so successfully did? If they do, what is left?
The third will be for Democrats to sit on their hands. If, as they have predicted, Trump’s policies will lead to higher prices, widespread hardship among his core voters, and a vastly weakened America in world affairs, might it not be better to let Republicans do pretty much as they please? As Napoleon once remarked, “Never interrupt when your enemy is making a mistake.”
But the “let them fail” approach has a downside as well. How can a party that has spent a century trying to make life better for Americans; enacting, over Republican opposition, such programs as Social Security and Medicare; ensuring that everyone has the right to vote; pushing for an end to racial and gender discrimination; attempting to enact common sense gun control; giving women the right to make their own health care decisions, now choose to stand back and let all that come crumbling down, hoping to pick up the pieces later? Will there even be pieces to pick up?
Both parties have their faults. But Democrats have demonstrated time and again that their cause and their approach to government is far more attuned to the ideals this country claims to value than Republicans, for whom equality is nothing more than a hollow catchphrase.
But now the country has rejected those ideals. Moving forward to turn dreams of true democracy into reality was, as Judy Collins sang in 1964, “still a long and a hard and a bloody ride.” Sixty years later, getting back what has been lost will make that road longer and harder, and perhaps bloodier still.
Sad but true. 😏