What I think Democrats should do
The good, the bad and the ugly
I will be away for some of next weekend and all of the weekend after so odds are this will be the last thing I write this year. To compensate for that, this post is going to be much longer than usual. This is something I have been planning on writing since the election, but wanted to hold off on it until all the results came in and I had a chance to give my more immediate takes. I will break this post up into three sections. Hopefully that will help you all stay awake.
The first section will be discussing issues where I think Democrats are doing well and should continue to press ahead on. The second section will be about things I think Democrats should not do. The third section will be on things I think should be done differently. I’m not writing this post because of the presidential election’s outcome. There are many changes I would like to see Democrats make and that would be true even if everything had gone perfectly last month.
Before getting into the substance of this post, some things need to be made clear. When I say “Democrats,” I’m referring almost entirely to candidates, elected officials and party officials such as those running party-affiliated groups like the Democratic National Committee. Unlike parties in parliamentary systems, parties in the US are very weak. The Democratic Party has no official leadership. It’s not a centrally run group where you can complain to management about a problem and they can snap their fingers and fix it.
Often times when people say or write that Democrats should do X, Y and Z, they’re making demands that are not actionable. The same is true for the Republican Party, but that’s for another blog post. My focus here is entirely on the Democratic Party, such as it exists and can do things.
Parties in the US only have a central figure when they have a presidential nominee and when they occupy the White House. Even then, the presidential nominee and, if they win, president can’t tell every single elected official and candidate in their party what to do. Since 2016, the Democratic Party has not really had a central figure. Biden has been president, but he’s very unusual in how low profile he has been. Unlike most other presidents, he has no charisma, no fanatical following and no forceful presence that would make him seem like the central figure that his predecessors and soon-to-be successor have been.
Between being the party out of the White House from 2017-2021 and Biden not being a forceful presence, the Democratic Party has largely been rudderless for the last eight years and that will be true until 2028. That has not always been a bad thing. The election years since 2016 have hardly been catastrophic. In fact, Democrats have done well far more often than not and accomplished an incredible amount from 2021-2022.
One drawback to not having a central figure is a party can be defined by its most vocal members and associated advocates. As much as social media has played a role in elevating far-left figures, the lack of a central figure to push back on that crowd has not helped. For the brief time she was campaigning, Harris was the party’s central figure and she laid the groundwork for what I hope 2028 contenders will build and expand on, but that’s a ways away.
When I write about what I think Democrats should do, I’m not really thinking about the midterms in 2026. As I wrote about before, the only thing that needs to happen is to run candidates who are good fits for their states and districts. Midterms are best seen not as one election, but multiple elections happening simultaneously. There is no central figure involved for the party out of the White House. That’s usually good because midterms are almost always a referendum on the party in the White House and the verdict tends to be negative.
My focus in writing about what I think Democrats should do concerns improving their ability to win elections and, more importantly, producing better policies. The latter is what I think the end goal of politics should be, not just getting elected. Some of the things I will mention, I think, could be good electorally, but are not guaranteed to work.
What I’m trying very hard to avoid doing in discussing what I think Democrats should do is fighting the last battle. Almost all the election post-mortems I have read make that mistake. It’s tempting to look at the particular issues and other things that went on during the campaign and focus entirely on that. That doesn’t work because each campaign is different. What were big issues this year may not be issues at all in 2028. Similarly, what were not issues this time around could be a huge deal in four years.
What Democrats should do going forward and why Trump won are often lumped together, but they’re not the same thing. Why Trump won, if you don’t have a self-serving narrative to peddle, is straight forward. If I had to quantify why he won, I would say it’s 85% inflation, 10% immigration and 5% everything else.
The takeaway from inflation regarding what Democrats should do going forward is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Inflation was caused by the pandemic and the response to it. That was an extraordinary set of circumstances that, god willing, won’t repeat again in our lifetimes.
One could argue the takeaway should be to not overstimulate the economy. Maybe, but it’s not necessarily that simple. Each economic downturn is different and the next one will be caused by something very different from a pandemic and the response will necessarily need to be very different. Whenever the next downturn happens, the response to the pandemic is likely going to have little to no relevance.
With respect to immigration, it’s hard to argue the Biden Administration handled it well both substantively and politically. Eventually it did get the message and pivoted hard, but it was too little too late. Going forward, it’s unclear how big of an issue immigration will be in 2028 and it’s entirely possible it will have shifted in Democrats’ favor. In the future, I don’t think any Democrat is going to take immigration advocacy groups seriously absent major changes to their strategy. The results of the election should shatter the idea that moving leftward on immigration is how to win Hispanic voters. I think most everyone realizes that now. It should have been obvious after 2020, but better late than never.
Where Democrats are right
Contrary to what many think, the Democratic Party’s brand is not in tatters. The presidential race didn’t go well, but it was close. Downballot, Democrats largely held their own despite the unfavorable national environment. They are three seats away from controlling the House and have 47 seats in the Senate. On the state level, they’re in better shape than they were after 2018, which was a wave election year for them.
There are many issues where public opinion favors the Democratic position and where I think Democrats should keep pressing forward. Abortion is one of them. Public opinion is decidedly pro-choice, even in many red states. Republicans on the national level want nothing to do with it and Trump did everything he could to not be associated with a national ban.
In state level elections, Democrats should make abortion a major part of their campaigns, particularly in states where it’s not constitutionally protected. It’s an issue with high salience and is something people care a lot about and will vote on, especially in non-presidential elections. Abortion alone won’t turn red states blue, but it will give Democrats an issue to run on and use to their advantage. It will also ensure that Democratic voters show up and a significant number of voters who prioritize it will vote for Democrats.
Nationally, the position of almost all Democrats is to codify Roe v Wade. That won’t happen anytime soon, but it’s a winner and something Democrats should campaign on, including many of those running in red states and districts. I think campaigning on making sure abortion pills remain accessible would be great, too, and something Democrats almost everywhere can get behind.
Another issue where Democrats are on solid ground is healthcare. The Affordable Care Act is now popular and widely used. Democrats everywhere would probably be on firm ground to campaign for expanding its insurance subsidies to cover more people. The hardest part was passing the ACA in the first place. Now that it’s here to stay, expanding it will be much easier.
When it comes to Medicare negotiating prescription drug prices, Democrats are on solid ground. Literally every Democrat in all parts of the country favors it. They should campaign on it and push to expand its reach.
The minimum wage is another issue where Democrats are on solid ground, including in red states. It wasn’t long ago when raising it to $15 an hour was outlandish. I used to be against it. With the passage of time, I no longer feel that way and it’s now a very popular cause. Some states that have voted to raise their minimum wage to $15 an hour during the last four years include Florida, Nebraska, Missouri and Alaska. If it’s popular there, it’s going to be popular almost everywhere.
Paid sick leave and paid parental leave are also good ideas where Democrats are on strong ground. The devil is in the details when it comes to policy design, but for electoral purposes those issues are likely winners, even in red states. This year, Alaska, Missouri and Nebraska overwhelmingly voted to require employers to offer some paid sick leave to employees. As with raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, if it’s popular there it’s going to be popular almost everywhere.
What Democrats should not do
This is nearly as important as what Democrats should do. Democrats should not try to outdo Trump in the demagoguery department and should not try to find their own version of him. No amount of Trumpy rhetoric is going to work. At best, it will come off as fake and calculating. Otherwise it will be off-putting and backfire. Trump is in a league of his own and has an appeal that is unique to him. No other Republicans have been able to replicate it and Democrats should not delude themselves into thinking they can do it.
I don’t want Democrats to embrace protectionism and more statist control of the economy. I find much of the post-election discourse to be dismaying, especially on that issue. Apparently, some think the takeaway from Democrats should be that trade is bad, tariffs are good, automation should be stopped and businesses should thrive based on how well-connected they are with the government. Basically, the idea is that protectionism is here to stay and Democrats should embrace it with gusto.
I find that a little odd considering we just had an election where inflation was the dominant issue. Some seem to think people were mad that prices weren’t high enough. Trump’s entire approach to the economy, if you can even call it that, is protectionist, statist and corrupt to its core. If he acts on what he says he wants to do, it will make prices higher and he will be very unpopular for it. It’s beyond me how anyone can conclude that Democrats should try to emulate that.
FYI, trade is a good thing. It’s not perfect, but the alternative of protectionism is way worse. People don’t like high prices and no matter how much they say in the abstract that they want protectionist measures they will hate the results. I want at least one of our two major parties to prioritize lowering prices.
Trade with China has not worked out as hoped, but the solution is not to disavow all trade, just the opposite. Efforts to counter China will require the US to trade even more with allied countries. Countering China is going to be the most important foreign policy task by far and we will need all the help we can get. Protectionist measures are going to make that much harder.
I don’t want Democrats to try to become the more populist party. No matter what the subject is, populism is a cancer. When it comes to solving problems, it offers nothing but rage, hate and resentment, whether it’s against immigrants, business, billionaires, universities or anything else. Populism is an ideology with a black-and-white, zero sum worldview that pits people against each other and it never ends well. The best thing we can hope for between now and 2029 is Trump discredits populism for the rest of our lives. That won’t happen if Democrats decide to try to outdo him on it.
To be sure, I think some populist rhetoric on the campaign trail is fine. That said, it has to be targeted towards specific issues relevant to the state/district that is being contested. It can’t be a substitute for moderating on issues where the Democratic Party is seen as out of step. That part is very important as some seem to think all Democrats need to do is be more angry and go further left on economics while ignoring everything else.
As much as I think the Biden Administration erred on immigration until recently, immigration is a good thing and not something we should turn against. We need border security and we can’t have millions of immigrants flocking here at once. At the same time, we need immigrants to stay vibrant as a country. We need the economic dynamism and the labor force they bring. Between having an aging population and a low fertility rate, we’re going to need more immigrants. It’s not that they are doing jobs Americans won’t do. It’s that we don’t have enough native born people to do all the work that needs to be done.
The best idea for Democrats, I think, is to return to their position during the Obama years. He deported large numbers of illegal immigrants and was vilified by activists for it. He also pushed for comprehensive immigration reform, including a pathway to citizenship for some of those currently here illegally. That approach was good and should be pursued again. I want Democrats to go that route and not overreact in the opposite way by embracing anti-immigration sentiment and trying to out-Trump Trump.
What Democrats should change
I have plenty of policy specifics in mind, but I’m not going to argue that every last thing I want is absolutely necessary and I’m not writing a book. Let’s face it, this post is already too long. I don’t want to torture you all that much, but, fair warning, this section is the longest by far.
Beyond any specific policy change, the most important thing I think Democrats should do differently is to change their mindset. This applies on the federal, state and local level. For too long, Democrats at all levels of government have operated on the mindset that keeping everyone in their coalition pleased is the top priority. That has to end.
The unwillingness to say no to any of their coalition members has resulted in legislative paralysis, the inability to get things done, passing things that are a clusterfuck and don’t accomplish what they’re supposed to, denying the existence of tradeoffs and deferring excessively to interest group demands over what is clearly good policy and in the party’s interest. Ezra Klein famously coined the phrase “everything bagel liberalism” to describe this problem and he’s absolutely right.
Democrats at all levels of power have to decide what it is that they want to do. Because of their unwillingness to tell their coalition members no, they have often tried to do everything at once. The result has been that nothing gets accomplished. For individual coalition members that outcome is fine because everyone else loses, too. If you care about good governance and policymaking, which you should, it’s an abject disaster.
On the state and local level, housing is a huge problem in places like California and New York. Almost everyone there says housing costs are a problem, but when legislation is passed it seldom reflects that. What it tends to do is reflect the priorities of various interest groups, mainly by attaching all kinds of costly requirements designed to please all of them. The goal of increasing the housing supply is quickly lost in the mix.
On housing, Democrats have to make building it a priority. That means doing everything possible to make it easy to build. Permitting more housing, but then attaching all kinds of requirements such as requiring builders to pay union wages, have a diverse workforce, build units that are “affordable,” etc., makes building vastly more expensive. At a certain point, projects no longer pencil out and nothing gets built. Housing costs remain sky high and people keep leaving supposedly tolerant and inclusive blue states.
Democrats have to look at themselves in the mirror and decide if that’s really what they want. If they don’t want people to leave California and New York, then they have to address the cause of it, which is the lack of adequate housing. New York City recently took a step forward in doing that, but there is still a long, long way to go. If Democrats there really want to make it an affordable place to live, they are going to have to tell some of their coalition members no.
The priority has to be cutting down on regulations, not adding more of them or replacing old ones with new ones. If that means the workforce building housing is not diverse, is not unionized, is not made up of small businesses, doesn’t use items made in the US and doesn’t build units that are “affordable,” so be it. Like it or not, tradeoffs exist and you can’t wave a magic wand and make them disappear. Something has to give.
When I say more housing needs to be built, I don’t mean the government should do it, just in case anyone was unclear about that. Public housing has its place, but it’s only geared towards a small segment of the population. The problem in New York, California and other blue states is not just that poor people can’t afford to live there. It’s that middle and even upper middle class people are struggling to afford to live there. The best thing the government can do to help with that is get out of the way. If local governments won’t do that on their own, then the state government has to step in and push them aside.
In finding the will to tell their coalition members no, Democrats are not just going to be fighting the left. That crowd is of no help these days, but they aren’t the only problematic coalition members. In blue states, there are plenty of Democrats who are NIMBYs, but are not leftists. They, too, will have to be told no.
The overarching priority I think Democrats should pursue at all levels of government is to lower prices across the board. That includes everything from energy to housing to healthcare. Some have called it the “abundance agenda,” which I have written about before. It may be good politics at times, but, more importantly, it’s good policy and is reflective of the world we live in and the challenges we’re facing.
For Democrats, pursuing abundance is going to require upsetting many of their longtime coalition members. Democrats are really going to need to rethink their relationship with groups they have long considered to be essential partners. I will discuss two examples here.
For me, the most important issue on the federal level is energy. The Inflation Reduction Act is a very good bill and I’m glad it passed. The problem is it faces big obstacles to reaching its potential. The biggest one is permitting rules that make it hard to build needed energy infrastructure and for new forms of energy to takeoff, i.e., geothermal.
There is currently a good permitting reform bill languishing the Senate. I hope it passes this year, but I wouldn’t hold my breath on it. Within the Democratic coalition, the biggest opponent of permitting reform is environmental groups. I have written about that crowd many times and have nothing but contempt for them at this point. All that matters to them is blocking fossil fuel projects from going forward and protesting for its own sake. They don’t care about promoting clean energy. They’re astroturf groups who don’t speak for any actual voters and are bad faith actors. No Democrat should cater to them, seek out their endorsement, listen to them or even acknowledge their existence until they change their ways.
Who are some groups like that? Here is a letter signed by over 360 environmental groups opposing the current permitting reform bill. Any group on that list should not be taken seriously by any Democrat. The minimum threshold questions Democrats need to ask themselves when deciding whether to take an environmental group seriously should be (a) do they support nuclear power?; and (b) do they support the current permitting reform bill? Any answer other than an unequivocal yes should be disqualifying.
It's not just Democratic elected officials, but also many on their staff who defer to those groups, mostly out of custom and fear of being yelled at. Seriously, that’s what is going on. It’s beyond pathetic. Democrats have to be willing to take heat from them. It’s not fun to be yelled at and to be shunned in social circles, but if Democrats are really serious about lowering prices and promoting clean energy they will have to get over that.
Another group Democrats should rethink their relationship with is unions. While the goals of unions can align with promoting abundance and lower prices, they often don’t. More cynically, I’m sick of Democrats doing stuff for unions when their members don’t vote for them. Bailing out the Teamsters’ pension fund when their members vote Republican is bullshit. Almost as infuriating was the dockworkers strike, which many if not most Democrats vocally supported. Never mind that the union representing those workers didn’t endorse Harris and its boss is a Trump fan. The biggest demand from the union was to ban automation technology at ports. To hell with that. Why don’t we ban electricity and cars while we’re at it?
One major source of tension between the goals of Democrats and unions concerns electric vehicles. The Biden Administration tried to have it both ways and it didn’t work out. It promoted EVs and gave them money while also alienating Elon Musk, by far the biggest player in that market. Hate him all you want, but Musk’s alienation from the Democratic Party is not unrelated to being excluded from a meeting of EV makers at the White House in 2021.
Why was Tesla excluded? Because Biden is a union guy and Musk, like all bosses, is not. Democrats are going to have to choose between their misplaced unconditional love for unions and making as many EVs as possible. I prefer the latter and if that upsets unions then that’s what has to be done.
Going forward, Democrats’ relationship with unions should be a lot more transactional. Biden has many good traits, but one bad trait is being a product of the 1970s. He yearns for a return to a world where unionized manufacturing jobs were a big thing. That world has been gone for decades and is not coming back. Anyone pushing for policies based on nostalgia should not be deferred to. Trump has fully embraced the dockworkers and their Luddism. Democrats should not follow him down that path.
Biden was highly deferential to unions even if it meant not acting more on inflation and even when it risked a surge in it. Going forward, no Democrat should be like that. At a minimum, no Democrat should do anything for a union whose members vote Republican. Those unions should go to Republicans for help. The Democratic mantra of whatever unions say goes needs to go.
Cynical politics aside, we live in an economy that is heavily service-based. Efforts to bring back the manufacturing jobs of the 1970s are fantasy and a waste of time at best. I want Democrats to be the party that is present and future-oriented and pursues policies that will actually make peoples’ lives better. That will require policies reflecting the realities of the current economy, not the economy of 50 years ago.
Democrats should wholeheartedly embrace technological progress. That includes everything from GMOs to Ozempic to driverless trucks and cars to artificial intelligence. All of those are things that can help lower prices and make us all better off as consumers. Anyone opposed to those things is fighting for higher prices and stuck in the past.
When it comes to cultural issues, it’s common to hear people say Democrats should moderate. That claim is often ambiguous and I have my own idea of what it means, which I will go over here. Almost every fight that gets a lot of attention on TV and social media is ephemeral and not something many voters even know about. I don’t like wokeness and I especially dislike the language policing and efforts to cancel people it has inspired. At the same time, we need to recognize that wokeness is all but dead and is not coming back.
The crazy stuff from the late 2010s and 2020-21 is already behind us. It’s going to take a while before people realize that because these things operate on a long lag time. Come 2028, I’m not worried about Democratic presidential candidates catering to groups demanding that they endorse transition surgery for illegal immigrant inmates and other crazy shit. The language policing that was prevalent not too long ago is much less of a problem and getting better. Buzzwords associated with wokeness are going away fast.
After George Floyd, universities and businesses implemented all kinds of DEI initiatives and trainings. At best, those efforts were unsuccessful in trying to promote diversity and inclusiveness. Otherwise, they made things worse. The good news is that bubble has burst. Corporate America is moving away from it and so are universities. By 2028, my guess is hearing the phrase DEI will be as common as seeing Bigfoot. Essentially, many of the things people are saying Democrats should distance themselves from are already on their way out and will likely be gone soon enough.
What I think Democrats and especially activists should do on cultural issues is less about specific matters and more about just being chill. We’re already seeing signs of that. On transgender issues, many activists are starting to realize that their strategy of screaming at people and trying to cancel anyone not in 100% agreement with them is not working. Pro tip, if you have a position that is unpopular, the only way to change that is to meet people where they are and work to convince them that you’re right. It’s good to see some previously militant activists realize that.
I think Democrats should fight for the rights of transgender people against discrimination in housing, healthcare, employment and military service. Those are the hills to die on. Activists who have chosen to obsess over gender affirming care for minors and transgender women in girls’ sports have done a huge disserve to transgender people. By focusing on those fringe issues, they have abandoned the big issues affecting the people who they’re supposed to be fighting for. I’m glad some of them now see that they need to change their ways.
In general, it would be good for Democrats to take a more laissez-faire attitude towards how people live their lives. Very few Democrats are preachy buzzkills, but it would be good for them to be more vocal about how it’s okay to live your life as you please. If someone wants to watch a movie, eat certain foods, listen to certain music, go to a comedy show, drive a certain kind of car, etc., that’s fine. They should be able to do as they please and not be judged for it.
Don’t be moral scolds. People don’t like that. It used to be the right who was guilty of that, particularly when the religious right was a force. Since the 2010s, it has been the left who has been the most preachy and condescending. Given how much more cultural influence the right has gained lately, I’m sure the pendulum will swing in the other direction soon enough. Democrats should be ready to push back against it and be on the side of normal people.
To end this post (finally!), I want to highlight some Democrats who I think are doing a good job of differentiating themselves and showing some potentially helpful ways for Democrats to win. These are just the names I can think of off the top of my head and hardly an exhaustive list. They are Josh Shapiro, John Fetterman, Ruben Gallego, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, Jared Polis and Jared Golden. They’re all different people doing different things and come from different backgrounds, but they all punch left when needed and have been shown to have good instincts about their states/districts. Some may be future presidential candidates, but regardless they’re people to keep an eye on and learn from.