Your correspondent was of course elated by the election results. But my elation quickly turned to serious contemplation of the three key questions: what do the results mean, how will Trump respond, and what should Democrats do with their control of Congress?
The Results
With apologies for what may be a premature interruption to post-election euphoria, I suggest that you be cautious in indulging the idea that MAGA or Christian Nationalism are now spent forces, or that some kind of “Blue Wave” has changed the fundamental orientation of rural and conservative America. We will have much to learn from post-election interviews, polls, and analysis. But in the meantime, I suggest that this election result was powered by independent minded voters coming out to express their disapproval of Trump and dissatisfaction with the status quo, and thus should not be regarded as an endorsement of the Democratic Party or its agenda. National Election Pool data shows that voters disapproving of both parties rose to 15% of the electorate and those disapproving voters, this time, preferred Democratic candidates by 28 points. So it is clear that voters responsible in important part for this week’s result still have deep reservations regarding whether they are or could be aligned in a more substantive way with the Democrats.
If there has been any realignment, I believe it may be that some voters traditionally split between red and blue may now be united in their disapproval and fear of the extreme consolidation of wealth occurring in America and the tone-deaf arrogance with which those who hold it believe they are entitled to buy political power and public policy just as they would any other commodity. I also believe we may find that substantial numbers of younger voters from both blue and red backgrounds are now aligned in wanting to see federal government leadership to ensure that AI advances on a safe and regulated footing, and to meet the real and present challenges presented by the changing climate.
Trump
Once again, we failed to understand how completely Trump’s motivation and conduct are determined by his epic case of narcissistic personality disorder. His strategy for the campaign: Pretend I’m on the ballot. His comment on Truth Social after the election: “I wasn’t on the ballot and if I was, we would have won in a landslide.” It is, as usual, all and only about him, and completely delusional.
So, with a narrative that satisfies the needs of his ego firmly in place, does he really care about the election result? In so far as it relates to any policy priority or the fate of the GOP as a whole, it’s unlikely. In so far as it might frustrate completion of the ballroom, D.C. golf course, or triumphal arch, yes. In so far as it might result in exposure or prosecution of his and his immediate family’s corruption, maybe.
Why maybe? Trump will of course issue blanket pardons to his immediate family (and, so they hope, to others who acted on his assurance that pardons would be forthcoming). But there is an awkward constitutional question regarding the validity of a self-pardon, which he will be anxious to have adjudicated while the composition of the Supreme Court is still favorable (although others believe that he is unwilling to rely on that and will instead strike a deal with the Vice President to pardon him upon Trump’s resignation (and Vance’s ascension) at or toward the end of the current term). Assured one way or another that he will never be legally accountable for his malfeasance, two years of Congressional hearings laying out the sordid details might be unpleasant, but would not pose any risk. Moreover, he has never been embarrassed by these types of disclosures, which can easily be dismissed as “witch hunts” or met with simple assertions that the conduct (no matter how appalling) was proper. Ironically, like all gangsters and kleptocrats, he takes pride in the scale and audaciousness of his thefts and cons, and may actually welcome disclosure when he is immune to its consequences.
What should Democrats do?
The Democratic Party’s most likely error, and the one virtually guaranteeing failure, is allowing a scenario to unfold where it is seen by the public to be engaging in business as usual: the same old faces, the same internecine squabbles, the daily Congressional hearings seemingly intended only to score political points, the government shut-downs, blame-games, vicious rhetoric, and overall sense of dysfunction. Democrats must absolutely resist the temptation to pass bills that will never become law, like the GOP House’s absurd record of voting over 50 times to repeal, defund, delay, or otherwise alter Obamacare when not a single one of the bills had a chance of becoming law. These sorts of theatrics are not what the voters voted for, and they will deal harshly in 2028 with any party that is not seen by them as offering fresh non-geriatric faces, new ways of speaking, fresh ideas to address the issues voters care about, and most importantly, results.
The Democrats must act quickly to convince the electorate that they were heard. This means six things: (i) making substantial efforts to end the war in Iran, (ii) doing something else (in addition to ending the war) that will have a meaningful impact on affordability, (iii) responding in some way to Trumpian corruption, (iv) adopting legislation to mitigate the unpopular consequences of Citizens United and limit the role of billionaires in future elections, and (v) starting down the long road of rebuilding our democracy.
None of these will be possible without some GOP Senators and Representatives working with the Democrat majority (to avoid filibuster in the Senate and to override vetoes). Now that almost all elected Republicans are MAGA, the key distinction is between the cultist true believers and the opportunists. Among the latter group, it helps that some already believe that the war in Iran and Trump’s tariff policies were mistakes. I am not naively expecting any of them to “do the right thing,” but instead thinking that some may opportunistically calculate that their odds in 2028 are improved by showing some independence from the discredited leader and getting some credit for responding to popular calls for action on Iran, affordability, and corruption.
Iran. On Iran, Trump has given all the leverage to the Iranians and put the US in a position in which it is difficult to even revert to the pre-war status quo. Nonetheless, the Congressional leadership, hopefully with the support of a significant number of Republicans, should state that they will use a removal resolution under the War Powers Act and/or defunding of the Iran war to prevent any further military action against Iran, requiring only confirmation from all littoral states that the Strait of Hormuz is an international waterway where free and safe passage for all is guaranteed. In due time, we will need to negotiate a nuclear agreement to replace the JPCOA which was recklessly repudiated by Trump, but the current administration, using amateurs rather than experienced diplomats, is incapable of doing this.
Affordability. Ending the Iran war will have a salutary effect on prices, as will revocation of all Trump tariffs. This too will require GOP cooperation to avoid a veto. Congressional leadership should sweeten the deal with Republicans by offering regulatory and/or tax reforms popular with the GOP that could have meaningful impacts on gas, grocery, housing, child care and health care costs. These should be coupled with embrace of progressive ideas such as limiting usurious credit card interest rates.
Corruption. Impeachment would be a mistake, energizing the otherwise demoralized MAGA movement, foreclosing the possibility of actual governing, and disappointing those who voted for focus on their needs as opposed to political squabbling. Similarly, oversight hearings that tell the sordid stories of Trump world conflicts and corruption should be approached with caution. Far better, in my view, would be actual legislating with the goal of closing the loopholes exploited by the Trumps and preventing future corruption. Trump may be largely indifferent if the new rules don’t affect him. These could include, for example, detailed elaboration of the emoluments clause, bans on Congressional stock trading, detailed disclosure requirements, and toughening of Federal rules regarding conflicts of interest. If handled properly, these reforms could attract bipartisan support (and some, which might not find favor with the current Supreme Court, may well satisfy scrutiny as the court evolves). As GOP Oklahoma City Mayor David Holt wrote, “It is now time to make America good again.” Crafted correctly, a broad slate of anti-corruption measures could conceivably attract sufficient support to override a veto.
Campaign Finance. We will need to await a new Supreme Court to overturn Citizens United (which found among other things that corporate money was protected political speech), but in the meantime, the Democrats should pursue, with GOP participation (and perhaps named in honor of GOP campaign finance advocate John McCain) legislation defining and strengthening anti-coordination requirements (upheld in Citizens United), enhancing disclosure requirements so the pubic exposed to a campaign advertisement knows exactly who is “speaking” (i.e., paying for the ad), and exploring other options for preventing billionaires from spending their effectively unlimited funds to buy elections. Lawyers and scholars at non-partisan groups such as CLC (Campaign Legal Center) have developed legislative strategies that are ready to be deployed.
Democracy. The Democrats must not allow another two years to pass without seeking to repair the grievous damage done by the current administration to our democracy. There is a long list of laws, norms, and traditions that need to be restored and made more durable. Significant creativity will be required to comply with the current Supreme Court’s view that the constitution contemplates an imperial Presidency above the law. Topics that should be addressed immediately through legislation include reversing politicization of the Justice Department, restoring the distinction between the civil service and political appointees, preventing a future extra-legal project such as DOGE, strengthening the independence of the Fed, further limiting the domestic use of the armed forces, re-authorizing ICE on a basis that prevents it from becoming a Gestapo-like domestic para-military force answerable only to the President, and attacking the premise of Christian Nationalism head on by, for example, legislating that all religions must be treated equally and none privileged over any other by any governmental action.
_________________
The threat of demagogic populism is ever present in a democracy. And, as Trump discovered and exploited, there is in this country a reservoir of hatred and grievance sufficient to fuel the next demagogue and the one after. The Democrats must pursue a long game designed to detach MAGA from the rest of its coalition, offering candidates and ideas that appeal to the rural, the religious, the young, and the entrepreneur. Thanks to the pace and nature of technological advancement, there has been no time in American history when the culture-gap between youth and age has been greater, and thus when the absence of youthful leadership has been more damaging. Democrats must not obsess about the antiquated distinctions between various shades of liberalism. They must become the forward-looking, problem-solving party, driven by youthful energy, optimism, fresh faces, fresh rhetoric, and results that matter to the middle class. The time to start is now. Candidates such as James Talarico and Abdul El-Sayed showed us this week what can be accomplished.
