Can We Depend On The Democrats To Figure Out How To Counter Trump And The MAGA Movement?

Or Is The Democratic Establishment Too Beholden To Corporatism To Be of Any Use?

As Bernie told his supporters yesterday, we’ve reached “a day that many of us have dreaded. Our opposition to Trump is based not only on our profound disagreement with him on most of the important issues facing our country but, even more importantly, the lies, fear mongering, bigotry and xenophobia which underlay those policies. Democracy flourishes where differences of opinion are respected and debated. Democracy is severely undermined under the barrage of bigotry, hate and disinformation that Trump and many of his acolytes propagate. Further, as Trump returns to the presidency, there is deep frustration with the inability of the Democratic Party to provide a clear alternative to Trumpism. It appears that most Democrats have learned little or nothing from the recent disastrous elections. It’s just not good enough to critique Trump and right-wing Republicans. That’s been done for the last 10 years. You have to stand FOR something. You have to provide an alternative to a status quo economy and political system which is just not working for the average American.”

This is the wealthiest country in the history of the world and major advances in technology can make us even wealthier. There is no rational reason why 60 percent of Americans should live paycheck to paycheck or why we have massive and growing income and wealth inequality. There is no rational reason why we are the only major country not to guarantee health care for all, and why we pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. There is no rational reason as to why 800,000 Americans are homeless and millions of others spend more than half of their limited,income to put a roof over their heads. There is no rational reason why 25 percent of seniors in America are trying to survive on $15,000 a year or less, why we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any wealthy nation, why young people leave college deeply in debt, or why childcare is unaffordable for millions of families.

We can do better. We must do better. But, in order to effectively move forward, we need to explain to the American people the role that Oligarchy and corporate greed have played in destroying working class lives in this country. We need a progressive agenda that addresses the many crises that working families face and points us forward to a better life for all.

Short-term, as Trump comes into office, we must call his bluff. In the recent campaign he ran as an anti-establishment populist prepared to take on the political class and act on behalf of working families. Well, let us hold him to his words and demand that he do just that. If not, we must expose him for the fraud that he is.

During his campaigns Trump has said that the pharmaceutical companies are "getting away with murder" and that he wanted to lower the cost of prescription drugs in this country. If that is true, we should be willing to work with him to make that happen. We have made some good progress under Biden in this area but much more needs to be done. If Trump is unwilling to stand up to the power of the pharmaceutical industry, we must make that clear.

At a time when many financially strapped Americans are paying 20 or 30 percent interest rates on their credit cards, President Trump stated that he wants to cap credit card interest rates at 10 percent. I agree and will soon be introducing legislation to do just that. Let’s see if he supports that bill.

Trump has rightfully pointed out that disastrous trade agreements like NAFTA and PNTR with China have cost us millions of good-paying American jobs as corporations shut down manufacturing in this country and moved abroad to find cheap labor. As someone who strongly opposed those agreements I look forward to working with him on new trade policies that will protect American workers and create good paying jobs in our country. Is he serious about this issue? Let’s find out.

Some of Trump's nominees have also made important points. Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. says that food corporations are “poisoning” our young people with highly processed foods that are causing obesity, heart disease and other serious health problems. Is Trump willing to take on the greed of major food corporations that are making record breaking profits? I doubt it, but let’s give him the opportunity.

Trump’s Labor Secretary nominee Lori Chavez-DeRemer has been supportive of the PRO Act, which would protect a worker’s right to join a union and bargain for better pay, benefits and working conditions. She is right. Workers must have the right to join a union without illegal interference by their bosses. Will the Trump Administration stand up to corporate interests and work with us to pass the PRO Act into law. Stay tuned.

No one denies that we must end waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government. Elon Musk, for example, is correct when he points out that the Pentagon has failed seven audits and cannot fully account for its budget of over $800 billion. We must make the Defense Department far more efficient. If we do that we can save taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars a year and cut Defense spending.

While we should be prepared to work with the Trump administration in areas where we can find agreement, we must also be prepared to vigorously oppose them in the many areas where they are not only wrong, but are bringing forth extremely dangerous policy.

We must vigorously oppose Trump, his multi-billionaire cabinet and Republicans in Congress when they try to pass massive tax breaks for the rich while cutting Medicaid and other public health benefits desperately needed by working families.

We will oppose them when they try to privatize or cut Social Security, the Veterans Administration, Medicare, public education, the postal service and other important public agencies.

We will oppose them why they try to repeal the Affordable Care Act and take away health care from millions of Americans.

We will oppose them when they represent the needs of the fossil fuel industry and try to rollback climate protections that put at risk the very habitability of our planet for future generations.

We will oppose them when they try to further take away the rights of women to make health care decisions about their own bodies.

If there were ever a time when progressives need to make their voices heard, this is that time.

We must oppose them as if we were fighting for our children, for future generations, for democracy and for the very well-being of our planet— because that is precisely what is at stake.

Let us not forget that Republican margins in the House and Senate are very slim. If we mobilize effectively we CAN stop some of their worst proposals. It was not that long ago, for example, that people making their voices heard all across the country saved the Affordable Care Act from Trump and a Republican majority.

It is also critically important that we never stop fighting for our vision for the future— one in which we have a government that works for all of its people, and not just a wealthy few.

Can we, one day, create an economic system based on the principles of justice, not greed? Yes, we can.

Can we transform a rigged and corrupt political system and create a vibrant democracy based on one person, one vote? Yes, we can.

Can we make health care a human right as we establish a system designed to keep us healthy and extend our life-expectancy, not one based on the profit needs of insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry? Yes, we can.

Can we, in the wealthiest country on earth, provide free quality public education and job training for all from child care to graduate school? Yes, we can.

Can we combat climate change and protect the very habitability of our planet for future generations, and create millions of jobs in the process? Yes, we can.

Can we make certain that artificial intelligence and other exploding technologies are used to improve the quality of life for working people, and not just make the billionaire class even richer. Yes, we can.

And even though we are not going to succeed in achieving that vision in the immediate future with Trump as president and Republicans controlling Congress, it is imperative that vision be maintained and that we continue to fight for it.

Let’s not kid ourselves. This is one of the most pivotal and difficult moments in the history of our country. What happens in the next few years will impact this country and the world for decades. Despair is not an option. We must aggressively educate and organize and go forward together.

"FanningThe Flames" by Nancy Ohanian

So… today’s the day: yes, Señor T is back. And Yascha Mounk wants to let his readers know that a return of total resistance would be a bad strategy. Instead, he’s offering “a guide for how liberals should approach the next four years.” A political scientist at Johns Hopkins and author of half a dozen books, including The Identity Trap: A Story Of Ideas And Power In Our Time (2023) and The People vs Democracy: Why Our Freedom Is In Danger And How to Save It (2018)

Like most of us, he saw Trump’s elevation to the White House in 2016 as “an aberration. He had faced a particularly unpopular Democratic opponent. He had lost the popular vote. There were all kinds of rumors about assistance from foreign powers. And then there was the nature of Trump’s electoral coalition: Heavily reliant on older white voters, it was widely interpreted as the last stand of a demographic bloc that was destined to decline in importance over the following years. All of these factors fed into a particular set of prescriptions about how best to oppose Trump’s presidency: total resistance. If Trump had been elevated to the White House through a series of unfortunate coincidences, then the best way to neutralize the danger he posed to American democracy seemingly was to oppose him in every possible way. The goal of the #Resistance was to stop Trump from taking over our institutions or becoming sufficiently ‘normalized’ to gain a permanent foothold in American politics. If only his opponents could withstand this unique period of acute danger, it was assumed, things would go back to normal.

Many progressives felt that the people who had voted for Trump “were irredeemable racists and bigots. Trying to change their minds was futile, perhaps even morally suspect. The only question would be how to outmobilize them.” There were efforts galore… but none of the attempts to oppose Trump— from investigations to impeachments— “was particularly effective… [E]even some of the tactics that seemed reasonable at the time proved to be ineffective. For example, it turns out that old political cleavages no longer matter when a polarizing figure like Trump turns much of the country’s public life into a referendum on himself. To political elites, the old divisions between Democrats and Republicans were still immensely meaningful in 2016, and so the willingness of both historically Democratic-leaning and historically Republican-leaning professionals to denounce Trump seemed like an objective indication of the danger he posed. But a lot of voters had by then realized that Trump’s arrival on the political scene had forced traditional Democrats and Republicans onto the same side. Fairly or not, these voters accordingly dismissed ‘bipartisan’ condemnations of Trump.”

All of the tactics used against him “turned out to have shortcomings of its own. But more fundamentally, all of them foundered because they were rooted in a mistaken analysis of the situation. For as Trump’s resounding reelection has shown, his success wasn’t an aberration. This time around, Trump won the popular vote. He was able to vanquish Kamala Harris even though she had far less political baggage than Hillary Clinton and was not subject to a damaging FBI investigation. There is no reason to believe that interference from foreign adversaries made a material difference in the election. Most strikingly, the narrative according to which Trump’s political appeal is restricted to one declining demographic segment of the electorate— widely assumed for the past years to be true even among the country’s leading political scientists— has turned out to be badly wrong. Unlike in 2016, his electoral coalition in 2024 drew heavily on Latinos, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and even African Americans.”

All of this means that the task facing Trump’s opponents is much more difficult than it seemed in 2016. The conviction that the diversification of the American electorate will eventually deliver inevitable victories to Trump’s opponents now looks hopelessly naive. The most obvious ideas about how to oppose him have been tested— and found to be wanting. Rather than “merely” getting through a one-time four-year emergency for the Republic, his opponents need to figure out how to defeat a political movement that has appeal within every major demographic group— and now threatens to grow into the dominant force of an entire political era.

Let me be honest: I don’t have the solution for any of that. And speaking to a number of senior Democratic politicians and strategists over the course of the last weeks, I have the strong impression that none of them do either.

For now, new ideas are few and far between. But the failure of the resistance offers some preliminary lessons of a more indirect kind: It can teach us mistakes we shouldn’t repeat. And it can tell us something about the form that an effective opposition to Trump would need to take.

Trump’s extreme language and erratic behavior practically beg for his critics to fall into rhetorical overreach. But it has long been obvious that he thrives on the excesses of his adversaries. It places him at the very center of public debate. It demonstrates that some of the least popular institutions in the country, including its most widely known media outlets, seem to have it out for him. Too often, it even distracts from his genuinely dangerous or unpopular actions: If everything from jokes about “Governor” Justin Trudeau to serious attacks on the separation of powers is treated as a five-alarm fire, many Americans falsely conclude that nothing he does is actually dangerous. Trump’s opponents would do well to speak about his failings in measured and graduated tones, reserving full-throated outrage for words or actions that are truly deserving of such condemnation.

A similar point holds for ill-judged attempts at accountability. Democrats need to use their voices in Congress to oppose bad policies and champion better solutions to the country’s problems. An important part of that role is to provide oversight of the government. They need to demand that the administration actually deliver on Trump’s promises to lower inflation, create millions of manufacturing jobs, and raise the standard of living for ordinary Americans. And, yes, they also need to investigate any suspected malfeasance. But in doing so, they must be realistic about what such investigations can accomplish and avoid turning them into ineffective spectacles that will widely be perceived as partisan grandstanding.

… [C]ongressional attempts at oversight should— even after 2026, if Democrats regain control of the House of Representatives— focus on preventing concrete abuses of power, not on trying to produce the dramatic moment that will miraculously make Trump vanish from the political stage.

This leads me to the most important lesson. Since Trump’s rise, much of his opponents’ energy has been taken up with figuring out some clever workaround to his popularity. (At times, #Resistance writing verges on the language of infomercial clickbait: The One Clever Trick for How to Defeat Authoritarian Populists That Political Scientists Don’t Want You to Know.) But in a democracy, such workarounds don’t exist. In the end, the only way to beat back demagogues like Trump is at the ballot box.

Now Trump according to recent polls is more popular than he has been at any point since 2016, including the day he got reelected. Even young voters, on whose overwhelming support Democratic strategists long thought they could count, are more open to his appeal than they were in the past. But what is striking is not so much that roughly equal numbers of Americans have a positive view of Trump as have a negative view. It is that clear majorities of Americans disapprove of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, have a negative view of the Democratic Party, deeply distrust established institutions ranging from Congress to Harvard University, and hate mainstream media outlets like CNN and the New York Times.

The key question for anybody who— like me— believes that there are valuable things worth preserving in our institutions is not “Why do they like him?” It is “Why do they hate us?” Until the Democratic Party— along with the wider world of the American Establishment with which it is now deeply associated in the minds of voters— is able to give (and act on) an honest answer to that question, every clever tactic for how to resist Trump is doomed to fail.

Anybody who hopes to change the current trajectory of American politics needs to understand why so many of their compatriots— young and old, gay and straight, white and Latino and Native American— have rejected the apparent certitudes on which our most important institutions are built. And that means taking seriously the possibility that though the man who has proven so adept at channeling their anger may be a self-serving charlatan, there are good reasons for that anger. Listening with an open mind and an open heart to those with whom we fundamentally disagree does not amount to an answer for how to oppose Trump. But unless Trump’s opponents regain a willingness to look at the country as it is and enter into conversation with their compatriots in a spirit of civic friendship, that answer will continue to prove elusive.

The ordinary rights of democratic citizens remain an important tool in the armory of those who seek to oppose Trump. If and when the administration does something truly outrageous, his critics should be ready to write to their representatives or take to the streets. When the next elections come along, they should consider supporting a local campaign they believe in or even running for office. The Trump administration is likely to abuse its powers in a variety of ways, and an active civil society remains important in curtailing the damage this may inflict upon longstanding constitutional values like the separation of powers.

But the strategy of total resistance, which has failed over the last eight years, is even less likely to succeed over the next four. Shouting ever more loudly about how bad a person Trump is won’t change anybody’s mind. And unless a lot of Americans change their mind over the next years— not only about the merits of Donald Trump but also about the trustworthiness of America’s most important institutions— Trump’s presidency will turn out to be but the prologue to a much longer epic.

In the words of Howard Zinn: “What matters most is not who is sitting in the White House, but who is 'sitting in'— and who is marching outside the White House, pushing for change.” The real work begins now. Together, we can make it clear: Trump’s America is not our America. And it never will be. This is a moment for progressives to reclaim the narrative— one that shifts the focus from fear and division to hope and possibility. The fight ahead will be grueling, but as history has shown us, transformative change is always born from moments of crisis. The question now is whether we have the resolve to seize this opportunity, to organize, and to resist— while never losing sight of the better future we’re fighting to create.

Hoping that Trump’s movement will dissipate on its own— even after he dies— or that his influence over the GOP will wane may be pie in the sky. In fact, his triumph has cemented a new era in American politics— one defined by authoritarian tendencies, grievance-based populism, and a fierce resistance to progressive values. This moment demands clarity, courage, and conviction. We can’t afford to fall into the trap of despair or paralysis. Yes, Trump’s reelection represents a profound setback, but it also offers a stark reminder of what’s at stake. Our response can’t merely be defensive— rejecting Trumpism is not enough. Instead, like Bernie wrote, we must build and advocate for a bold progressive vision that offers real solutions to the challenges facing working people. We must also recognize the limitations of “total resistance” as the sole strategy. Instead, we need a multi-pronged approach: one that exposes Trump’s hypocrisy and failures, pressures his administration to deliver on promises that resonate with working Americans, and builds a grassroots movement to counter the forces of oligarchy and extremism.

Was that Scott Bessent playing the leather daddy at the gayest inaugural celebration ever?