Following Joe Biden’s decision to not seek re-election in 2024 and the resulting chain of events, liberal voters and commentators were torn on how to feel about them. Some felt that after Kamala Harris was chosen to run in Biden’s stead, that the younger, quicker, sharper vice president would finally put an end to the Trump mania. Some lacked even the slightest hint of doubt about her assumed victory. Others felt the late change of candidates might cripple Democrats’ chances of remaining in the White House, fearing that Harris didn’t have enough time to put together an effective campaign.
When these worries manifested in Harris’ loss and Donald Trump’s second presidential term, the anti-Democrat floodgates opened. Criticism of Harris’ campaign and Democratic electoral strategy at large poured in from every direction. The party was accused of having learned nothing from the 2016 election, of being foolish to ever allow Biden to consider re-election, and all manner of other oversights and failings. Then, as Trump began successfully cleaving through the American political system the way he promised to, the burden of responsibility fell to congressional Democrats. They have yet to hear the end of liberal voters’ cries of inefficacy and disorganization.
Many of these voters have expressed their annoyance with what they believe to be Democratic politicians’ preoccupation with superficial stunts as opposed to meaningful action. Democratic New Jersey Senator Cory Booker’s marathon floor speech, the longest in US Senate history, and the Democratic National Committee’s tariff-mocking taco truck serve as two examples of such stunts.
Although several publications lauded the former stunt as a potential turning point for anti-Trump resistance, accusations of Booker’s speech being performative, ineffective, and ultimately meaningless still flourished on social media.
Nathan J. Robinson, founder and editor-in-chief of Current Affairs magazine, referred to the latter example as the party’s “latest substitute for real resistance.” “This kind of message,” he writes, “distracts from the most important issues that are at stake, and it makes the fight look like petty schoolyard insult-throwing rather than what it really is, which is a battle against a monstrously cruel and corrupt autocrat.” Like-minded critics would likely say Robinson’s argument could be used against much of the current Democratic playbook.
Something else these critics agree on is the notion that Democrats keep failing to counter Trump’s tyranny because they rely too much on outdated, even obsolete, political strategy. I happen to agree with this.
Trump’s populism thrives in confusing, cacophonous environments. He personally creates these environments by endlessly inundating rival politicians and media outlets with outrageous offenses. In the language of Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon, this tactic is called “flood[ing] the zone.” In the language of his longtime adviser Roger Stone, one must “attack, attack, attack—never defend.” The result is that Democrats are always defending, opposing, and reacting, and never acting.
In an age when a convicted felon can mop the electoral floor with an incumbent vice president, the resistance must get creative. But they must first get to work.
Featured image/photo by Gayatri Malhotra on Unsplash.