The Center Needs to Fall Apart: The Democratic Party, Class, Solidarity, and the Failure to Confront Trumpism
Donald Trump won the election, and at the time I’m writing this, he’s been president for nearly six months. The Democratic Party has failed in taking this opportunity to incorporate an authentic, sustainable, and grassroots political opposition to MAGA and Trump. The party is still licking its wounds from November. It’s reeling from abysmally low approval, according to poll data. However, the party is still leaning hard on its tone deaf, centrist, donor-driven strategy of addressing popular social and economic despair by hiring more experts and consultants to amplify feelgood talking points. Putting up expensive consultants in luxury hotels so they can further optimize swing-voter marketing strategiesand do more focus groups to streamline “language and content that gains attention and virality” with disgruntled voters is not meeting this vital moment. This is a segment of voters who continue to reject mainline Democrats (and Republicans) and are increasingly disenchanted with the elitism and performative concern of establishment political actors. As long as the party continues to disregard the material conditions and lived experience of economically and socially marginalized Americans, it will fall short of building such an opposition.
There’s another dimension to all of this. Confronting the prevailing psycho-social dynamics and conditions that have enabled an explicitly violent, authoritarian, antidemocratic, racist, misogynistic, anti-queer, anti-immigrant, and elitist politics to rise to a position of mainstream dominance is a heavy exercise. It’s sad and overwhelming, and following the protracted aftershock of Trump’s win, the movements have stepped up their activism. This has been in the form of the growing public opposition and recent massive protests in response to the Trump Administration’s mass detentions and deportations of immigrants (including documented immigrants) without due process. Faced with mounting pressure from what daily sounds and feels more like an ascendant fascism and real threat to the delicate semblance of democracy and due process that exists, people are taking to the streets to demand an end to the abduction and disappearing of their neighbors, coworkers, friends, and family, including the targeting of students and activists who simply hold views in opposition to the administration. But, yet again, rather than seeing this massive upswell as an opportunity to realign with its progressive base and young voters, to dig in and fight for our society’s most vulnerable, Democrats clumsily toe the line by offering more wavering language and courting that large fantastical cohort of swing voters waiting for the Dems to be just Republican enough.
Centrism and Its Discontents
This post-election aftershock was real, and, to me, it was bleak and paralyzing. However, a February article in The Atlantic had helped nudge me out of the haze. Unfortunately, not because it spoke to the conditions highlighted above but rather because it failed to do so. It was disappointing, but not in any way more than so many other articles that have appeared in the political magazines and news media that have made similar arguments since President Trump’s win. To be fair, it does include an incisive description of what’s different this time around with Trump 2.0, details some of the dangerous, hateful, and harmful measures already taken, and calls out the administration’s callous disregard for decency and the law. However, it mainly rehashes a lazy centrist critique of Democratic Party priorities. This centrist narrative is a variant that’s been foisted upon the public since Senator Bernie Sanders became an unlikely contender for the Democratic nomination during the runup to the 2016 election. It presents things from the perspective that the status quo is just fine. The system continuing to operate largely in the interest of elites is “pragmatic,” “bipartisan,” and “nonideological,” and progressive and populist proposals on the left are too far afield to be viable in US electoral politics. The Atlantic piece argues that a successful anti-Trump coalition needs to appeal “to suburban ‘wine moms,’ that’s when you’ll know you’re doing it right.” As if a lackluster centrist appeal for business as usual has been so energizing. As the failure of the Democrats to mount a substantive and effective challenge to Trump and Trumpism has shown, it hasn’t.
These numerous election post-mortems from anti-Trump commentators of various stripes have grumbled that Vice President Harris and other Democrats lost their recent races against Republicans because the party is pandering to the far left. The story goes, the party has become taken hostage by radicals; it’s become too “woke.” They wring their hands and complain that the party has become too extreme in its advocacy for trans inclusivity and that support for trans acceptance and rights overall has gone too far. They groan that the Democrats have damaged their credibility by advocating policies that that are weak on crime and are “anti-police,” have alienated men by attacking masculinity, and have endorsed a regime of DEI programs that are “unpopular” and offend a majority of the country. They complain that the party is doing too much to placate an out of touch fringe, one whose values are out of synch with working-class America, who, in turn, turned out for Trump as a result. However, none of this is why Trump won the 2024 election.
Who Are Working-Class Voters?
Centrist narratives that work to constrain leftist politics have the tendency to present working-class Americans as a White, native-born, straight, cisgender monolith. They are also usually misrepresented as essentially blue collar and conservative. Commentators urge Democrats to embrace a politics which appeal to this caricature, and there’s an implicit presumption that American workers possess a parochial and obtuse grasp of the issues. Capturing exactly what and who the working-class is can be a fraught exercise. However, based on some practicable metrics, we know at least half of the working-class are women, and workers of color make up 45% of this group. Also, about 19% are immigrants and approximately 8% are disabled. Queer workers are about proportionately represented within the working-class, and they are among those most politically engaged, organizing for broad anti-discrimination protections, better conditions in the workplace, and fair pay. Given this, it does not make sense that engaging in a politics and discourse that speaks to the lives and hardships of these groups has in turn alienated these same people. The proposition that the messaging and policy platform of a viable opposition to Trump have to either harmonize with exclusionary and bigoted narratives or be welcoming and inclusive of marginalized people needs to be soundly rejected.
A Problem of Morale and Turnout for Would-Be Democratic Voters
Vice president Harris’ campaign did not fall short because it appealed to the wrong political constituencies. Instead, it failed because it did not connect with economically and socially disaffected voters who are irritated with the usual campaign overtures of the political class. Despite Trump’s widely covered inroads with nonwhite voters, fewer voters turning out for the Democratic candidate in 2024 compared to 2020 was likely a more pivotal factor in his election victory than people who switched their vote. Also, overall, a smaller proportion of the voting eligible population turned out this past November in contrast to 2020. Comparing the popular vote totals from these two years, the Trump vote grew by roughly 3.1 million while Harris had about 6.3 million votes fewer than Biden four years ago. This is not a “to far left” problem. Rather, it is a problem of the Democratic Party establishment failing to energize voters. Over the last several decades, the party has shied away from a bold message and agenda that resonates with a plurality of middle- and working-class voters and validate their experiences with material hardship. Many working people are finding it more difficult to make ends meet. Therefore, Democrats’ “America is already great” message of 2016 and Harris’ more recent platitudes of American exceptionalism on the campaign trail are felt as a kind of tone deaf elitist gaslighting. This is a key reason why it’s been easy for the right to smear Democrats as elitist, and in turn to ideologically tarnish the substantive issues they have taken up. It’s true that when President Biden stepped down as the Democratic presidential candidate (albeit too late) and Harris stepped up, she had momentum going into and coming out of the Democratic National Convention. To be sure, some voters were inspired and hopeful, but many, terrified of the very real threat represented by Trump to formal democratic processes and civil society, voted for Harris out of fear. They did so because the status quo, bleak as it is, is better than aspirational autocracy (or worse). But, decisively, a large enough chunk of would-be Democratic voters didn’t turn out at all.
A Transformative Politics of Solidarity as Antidote to Authoritarian Hostility
Building on this, without an alternative that speaks to the real financial strain many are experiencing as a large portion of American workers live paycheck to paycheck, a reality encompassing “roughly one-third of US workers,” material insecurity and powerlessness can give way to a susceptibility to authoritarian discourse and politics. Effectively, authoritarianism is a staunch acceptance of one’s place in the social hierarchy with resentment and aggression expressed toward “others” and those recognized as having lesser status and power, especially when their behaviors are perceived to be out-of-role. Classically, it’s characterized by repressed hostility toward authority which (in relation to politics) is replaced with unwavering emotional and political devotion to a “strongman.” In turn, members of outgroups become identified as legitimate targets of hostility, bigotry, detainment, deportation, oppression, and violence. As life gets harder, even though others have it worse, conspiracy theories and narratives that scapegoat and demonize marginalized people become more compelling. Imagine if – instead – deep, systemic, progressive reform was on the table. The transformative power of joining with others to advocate for meaningful political objectives is energizing. It has the potential to enable class- and movement-based solidarities to emerge that promote seeing our neighbors in our communities (and even on our screens) as worthy of dignity and humanity. Instead, Trump has capitalized on the disaffection of the public by activating hateful grievance and prejudice and harnessing it in service of a nationalist politics of retribution and cruelty.
It’s critical to highlight that patterns of racism, xenophobia, and sexism in our society have always been prevalent, and they placed an inherent disadvantage on Vice President Harris, a South Asian and Black woman candidate. During their debate, this was apparent when Trump assessed that he could casually mock her biracial identity without damaging his campaign. He derisively asserted that “a number of years ago… she happened to turn Black.” His insinuation being that she only embraced her Black identity to score political points somehow. Despite Trump and a majority of his voters seeing Harris’ race as conferring a political advantage, according to Pew Research from September, nearly double the proportion of all voters saw Vice President Harris’ South Asian and Black racial heritage as something that would hurt her candidacy compared with Trump’s White racial background (19% vs. 10%). Further, the proportion that saw her gender as a liability was nearly four times larger compared to the share of voters which saw Trump’s as such (31% vs. 8%). After the election, AP VoteCast data showed that, again, despite Trump making significant (and much discussed) inroads among nonwhite voters, especially Black and Latino men, votes still broke down disproportionately along racial and gender lines. Race and gender still clearly play an important role in the perceptions of American voters that correspond to dominant patterns of racial and gender prejudice and inequality. Also, given American society’s intersectional complexity, such ideologies and circumstances are not solely internalized by dominant groups. After the election, Berkely sociologist Raka Ray offered insights into Trump’s win. She highlighted that “the racist and misogynist rejection of a Black and South Asian woman” should not be discounted. The right, after all, proliferated mis- and disinformation that appealed to “the wounded racial and masculine identity of particular demographic groups.” She also noted that Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric resonated, even with some in the immigrant community who were willing “to shut the door behind them.” However, Ray concluded, in the end, if many Americans were not worrying about the cost of things like food, rent, and other expenses this outcome would not have happened.
Bearing these contradictions in mind, a particular moment on the campaign trail subtly signaled trouble for Harris. During her Fox News interview with Bret Baier, she was asked: If Trump is so bad, Why is “half this country now supporting this person who could be the 47th president of the United States?” later following with, “Are they misguided, the 50%? Are they stupid?” After assuring Baier that she didn’t think the American people were stupid, the best response Harris could muster was to respond by saying that running for president is difficult. “It’s not supposed to be easy. It’s not supposed to be a cake walk.” She then reiterated her concerns for Trump being the one that’s “demeaning and engaging in personal grievances” against “the American people.” She was not wrong, but this was the perfect place to discuss how mass support for Trump is possible because he has been able to tap into legitimate expressions of social and economic insecurity that people are feeling and to acknowledge these are issues her party has inadequately addressed in the past. This was a lost opportunity to concretely frame prevailing dynamics of economic exploitation and connect them to other experiences of social marginality. Attaching these points to a message and politics that highlight the need to dismantle the grotesque power and influence of America’s oligarchs and significantly reign in the power they wield over regular people’s lives would have been deeply compelling. Presumably, the failure to do so was because of the formidable influence of party donors and other elite stakeholders.
The Dems Should Follow the Lead of the Movements and Their Base
Contrary to the admonitions of centrist Democrats and moderate Republicans, progressive and leftist policies are actually quite popular among Democratic and Independent voters, and many have substantial bipartisan support. For example, regarding guaranteeing healthcare for every American, according to the Pew Research Center, over 2/3 of survey respondents feel that “the federal government has a responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care coverage.” The vast majority of Democratic voters (88%) reported this, but even 40% of Republican voters responded that the government should take such a role. Even on a seemingly risky wedge issue like the Israeli war in Gaza, identified as a genocide by Amnesty International, the United Nations, and other organizations, there is widespread support for a ceasefire. Just weeks after the October 7 attacks by Hamas 66% of voters agreed that the US should push for a ceasefire and de-escalation of violence in Gaza. That sentiment has only intensified, with survey data from January 2025 showing support climbing to 78% in relation to support for a ceasefire, “including 84% of Democrats, 76% of Independents, and 73% of Republicans.” Trump ran aggressively against Transgender rights, and nationwide, Republicans spent over $65 million on television adds across more than a dozen states on this issue. In reality, transgender issues fall way behind economic issues as an important factor motivating voters, and Data for Progress found that 57% of all likely voters “reject candidates who support anti-trans legislation.” More than 80% of Americans believe that the government should prioritize “cracking down on corporations that are price gouging, on things like food and gas” as a way of dealing with inflation, and a similar proportion believe that the government should reign in “the high cost of health care and prescription drugs.” A GQR survey shows that 67% of Democrats and 63% of Independents identify corporate greed as the main driver of inflation and a More Perfect Union poll shows that 81% of all voters, including a majority of Republicans, think that that large corporations “are becoming too powerful.” The list of progressive positions which poll generally well goes on and on: taxing the rich, getting money out of politics, addressing climate change, enhancing school funding …and, yes, even support for DEI programs.
Returning to Raka Ray’s point, in addition to insidious social patterns like racism, sexism, and anti-immigrant bigotry, there is a fundamentally interdependent dimension of economic precarity and coercion in US society that needs to be reckoned with. It has resulted from decades of bipartisan policies that have weakened the safety net, promoted austerity, empowered deregulation, punished workers, etc. Perhaps the pressing question is, “Can these contradictions, with which the mainstream Democratic machine and its donors are fundamentally entangled, be effectively overcome for a meaningful opposition to Trump and Trumpism to be mounted from within the party?” If not, what is the alternative? What if it’s too late?
Yes, and…
Such a reckoning needs to be a “yes, and” proposition. Advocating, safeguarding, and expanding rights in relation to social categories like race, gender, sexuality, immigration status, etc., often disparaged as mere “identity politics,” has also not hurt Democrats politically, per se. The derision of identity politics has been a recurring critique from the right as well as segments of the left. However, the Democratic Party’s tendency toward political performance, with a focus on “optics and gesture” and as a way of bypassing deep structural change, has furthered the party’s problem with coming off as superficial and insincere. While the discussion has rightly come to encompass diversity and inclusion, it has generally failed to include (along with it) (1) a real critique of the malignant and predatory capitalism that has left many Americans languishing and (2) a policy agenda that significantly addresses the real economic pain and inequality faced by the public as a regular part of life. This has been the party’s principal weakness in mounting a substantive opposition. An effective strategy and platform also must energize collectivities to be engaged across social margins to mount a meaningful resistance to Trump. This needs to accompany, not replace, the necessary critique of the systemic oppression marginalized people have historically faced. A viable alternative must also go beyond resistance to Trump. It must also include and follow the movements which work to organize people against the structures of power that constrain their lives. Whether the Democrats will be willing to successfully take this on – and/ or a sizable and formidable enough resistance to Trump and Trumpism outside the party can effectively leverage its power – remains to be seen.