According to the classic textbook civics model, Congress makes the law, the president enforces it, and the courts interpret both the Constitution’s requirements and outer limits. A president’s formal powers go beyond merely executing the law, but whatever legitimate powers he exercises derive solely from the Constitution or from laws duly enacted by Congress. Implicit in this model is the assumption that each branch must act in good faith to uphold the Constitution’s integrity.
From the beginning, the civics model was under constant strain, and today it operates only partially, at most. Our modern democracy and administrative state are at once less and more than their original blueprint. Today’s political reality resembles a city that has expanded far beyond its original town center: echoes of the founding plan remain, and the original plan shaped subsequent developments, but both the structure and functions of government have changed—sometimes for better, sometimes for worse, often in response to circumstances unforeseen by the Founders.
The executive branch under the modern administrative state routinely issues regulations tantamount to law. Since the early 1970s, regulations have arguably become the most common—and divisive—method by which the federal government advances its policy agenda. As many Americans are acutely aware—and some acutely resent—regulations are often directed at private actors. Issued under congressional authorization and pursuant to specific laws, regulations are a necessary component of the administrative state. Essentially, they are a reflection of modernity’s dependence on expertise.
Beyond regulations, presidents also employ executive orders (formerly known more commonly as proclamations)—which are not to be confused with regulations. Regulations are issued pursuant to law (with varying degrees of guidance) and specify binding rules on private citizens. They give flesh to law. Executive orders, in contrast, are directed at the president’s executive machinery and are meant to provide guidance to federal agencies. They are not intended to impose new penalties or criminalize conduct not provided for by law.
Despite their limits, executive orders or proclamations can have profound effects—directly or indirectly—on private citizens. At extreme ends of the ethical spectrum, consider Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and Franklin Roosevelt’s 1942 Japanese-American Internment Order. Less extreme but still significant, President Truman desegregated the military by executive order, and President Kennedy prohibited racial discrimination in federally funded housing. More recently, presidents have designated national monuments and dictated their use, often with successive presidents issuing orders at ideological cross-purposes.
In short, profoundly impactful executive action is hardly new.
Shakedowns
What is new—or at least dangerously amplified—is Donald Trump’s routine use of executive authority (whether issued formally as executive orders or by rhetorical threat) as a blunt instrument of political coercion against his perceived foes. He does not merely enforce laws or apply policy to broad categories of relevant actors. He targets institutions—public and private—that he deems disloyal to him personally, using the power of the federal government to compel submission, enforce ideological conformity, or punish resistance.
The case of Columbia University illustrates this dynamic clearly. After clashes with the administration over its handling of campus protests and curriculum, Columbia faced the loss of $400 million in federal grants. The university complied with the administration’s sweeping demands, including the imposition
of federally approved external oversight of its Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies programs. Fortunately, the federal Trump administration met Columbia’s capitulation with goodwill and restored its canceled funding.
I’m joking, of course.
Despite Columbia’s pathetic capitulation, federal funding has not been restored as of this writing. Columbia’s obeisance has yet to earn them their sought-after reprieve. The administration’s message: groveling is necessary but insufficient.
Harvard University, witnessing Columbia’s bathetic ordeal from the front row, has chosen a different path. Confronting an administration angry at its perceived lack of ideological diversity, its DEI programming, its historic use of racial and gender considerations in hiring, and its liberal faculty’s role in college governance, Harvard initially engaged in quiet negotiations with the administration. According to The New York Times, Harvard was informed that it would receive a letter
detailing the administration’s demands—and it did.
They were blindsided—not by the letter’s arrival (though it was apparently sent by mistake
), but by its contents. The demands are arguably unprecedented in scope and intrusiveness for federal interference with a private institution of higher education. Reportedly, they extend to hiring practices, admissions policies, DEI programs, student clubs and disciplines, and even mandates to ensure “viewpoint diversity” in academic departments.
Steven Pinker, a prominent Harvard psychologist and president of the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard, said on Monday that it was “truly Orwellian and self-contradictory to have the government force viewpoint diversity on the university.” He said it would also lead to absurdities.
“Will this government force the economics department to hire Marxists or the psychology department to hire Jungians or, for that matter, for the medical school to hire homeopaths or Native American healers?” he said.
It’s worth noting the irony that these demands are issued by a president whose party has long claimed to oppose federal interference in private affairs. The same president who has called for the abolition of the Department of Education to return control to the states here eagerly commandeers the internal decision-making of a private university.
Harvard has rejected the letter’s demands outright. In response, the administration criticized Harvard for not continuing negotiations. More to our point, it also imposed a policy of retribution: it has not only frozen $2.2 billion in federal grants, but also threatened to revoke the university’s tax-exempt status and floated the idea of restricting foreign student entry.
Recall: Harvard has not been found guilty of violating any law or civil rights requirements.
The administration has called for Harvard to return to the bargaining table, suggesting reconciliation is possible—if Harvard accepts the president’s demands and apologizes for fostering an atmosphere of antisemitism. But this is not traditional domestic political bargaining aimed at finding mutual agreement. This is a classic shakedown.
Hey Harvard, if you want the federal government’s “investment,” get on the Trump bus.
It’s unclear how this can appear to any fair-minded observer as ordinary democratic governance informed by the rule of law. Presidents do, of course, have latitude in their methods of applying the law, and it’s inherent in executive action to make discretionary decisions. But they do not have discretion to apply the law unfairly or in a manner inconsistent with constitutional principles.
In the Trump administration, we see the federal government effectively punishing a private institution not because it has been found guilty of a legal violation, but because it refuses to comply with unprecedented, extralegal demands that reach deep into its internal affairs.
This is a classic shakedown.
Governance vis-à-vis Vendetta
Harvard is but part of a larger pattern of presidential abuse. The president’s political opponents are targeted, threatened, presumed guilty without trial, and required to apologize and make other concessions. We witness this pattern in higher education—but also in Trump’s treatment of select law firms he despises for political reasons. He has gone as far as accusing these firms of posing national security threats.
This pattern—ultimatum, sanction, extraction of favors, and demands of loyalty—is not wholly unprecedented. But we have traditionally seen it used in foreign policy against hostile regimes, not in domestic governance. It is a dreadful model for resolving domestic disputes within a democracy, which should build coalitions among diverse interests—not rule through intimidation.
Instead, the Trump administration treats personally disfavored American institutions the way past administrations treated foreign adversaries. His goal is political submission.
Trump’s approach to governance does more than deviate from a textbook model of democratic accountability—it undermines the very norms of constitutional governance.
Consider: the Constitution prohibits Congress from passing bills of attainder—laws that punish individuals or groups without trial. The Framers recognized the danger of targeted reprisals. The rule of law requires government to act through pre-established procedures applied fairly to all.
Though the prohibition against bills of attainder (Article I, Section 9) binds Congress specifically, its spirit applies to the whole government. Presidents must exercise discretion, but not capriciously or vindictively. When the executive branch issues threats to compel ideological conformity or institutional obedience—beyond what the law requires—it violates the rule of law just as surely as if Congress had passed a bill of attainder.
The Trump administration’s treatment of Harvard—and of law firms representing politically inconvenient clients—blurs the line between governing and vengeance.
Trump’s defenders argue that his actions fulfill campaign promises. But campaign promises are often broad and only take on legal force when enacted into law. Campaign rhetoric cannot justify bullying as a domestic policy tool. Governance by intimidation is not a legitimate path for a constitutional republic.
Ironically, many of the president’s supporters have long criticized federal agencies like the IRS for opacity, caprice, and coercive enforcement—and not without reason. Yet they now tolerate, even applaud, Trump’s use of the same tactics on a larger scale and for openly political aims.
At stake is more than Harvard’s grant money. The beauty—and essence—of the rule of law is that it constrains the powerful as much as the governed. When a president treats domestic institutions as foreign adversaries—resorting to pressure campaigns, public shaming, and coercive bargaining—he undermines the framework of constitutional democracy.
Harvard is not a hostile foreign government. It may be a flawed institution, but it is also a vital part of our history, an engine of American scholarship, and a celebrated component of civil society. Of course, its history and merits do not shield it from legitimate criticism or legal accountability. But there are lawful ways to pursue punishment, and there are democratically acceptable ways to challenge harmful policies.
Shakedowns and showdowns are not that approach.
Regrettably, that is precisely what we find in the Trump administration. His ideology is not exactly conservative, libertarian, populist, or fascist. Above all, it is an ideology of retribution and vengeance—a politics of vendetta.
Dragons and beholders and owlbears, oh my! During our geek formative years, we both discovered Dungeons & Dragons, and were instantly hooked. A sandbox where we have freedom to create our own heroic fantasy characters and stories, and we get to roll really cool-looking dice as well? Sign us up! In this episode, we cover the early years of D&D, from the white box edition through the first edition of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. Grab your character sheet and painted miniature and join us at the gaming table!
Ancient Geeks is a podcast about two geeks of a certain age re-visiting their youth. We were there when things like science fiction, fantasy, Tolkien, Star Trek, Star Wars, D&D, Marvel and DC comics, Doctor Who, and many, many other threads of modern geek culture were still on the fringes of culture. We were geeks before it was chic!
Please rate and review us on your favorite podcatcher–it is really a help! And please subscribe!
OTB relies on its readers to support it. Please consider helping by becoming a monthly contributor through Patreon
or making a one-time contribution via PayPal
. Thanks for your consideration.
This is admittedly a more personal post than usual for this venue, but given its political relevance, I’ve decided to share it—hoping my kind readership will forgive a moment of possible self-indulgence.
In 2009, my esteemed colleague Dr. Brian Carroll led a first-class, memorable campus-wide celebration of the First Amendment and the free exchange of ideas. The multi-day event included, among other activities, panel discussions on the modern relevance and meaning of the First Amendment, a choir performing songs once banned by law, and the display of an exquisitely faithful replica of the Gutenberg Bible. Dr. Carroll described it as “a tree with many branches”—a fitting description given that the event’s valedictory act was the planting and dedication of our college’s original Liberty Tree.
In early March of this year (2025), just hours after President Trump’s State of the Union Address, our campus’ Liberty Tree was brought down by a storm.
Our college community responded quickly and wholeheartedly. Within days, Mitch D., our head groundskeeper, and his crew—in consultation with faculty—selected and planted a fitting replacement. Even more inspiring, students Scarlett and Mary, without prompting or faculty interference, organized a rededication ceremony. They invited Dr. Carroll to speak on the history of the original Liberty Tree initiative and to introduce me as the event’s speaker. Humbled by his generous words, I delivered the entire speech with a lump in my throat.
Below is what I said, though for this forum I omit much of my thank you remarks to the folks already mentioned above.
My Liberty Tree Rededication Address
Good morning, and thank you for the invitation to speak today. It’s an honor to be in your presence to reflect on something dear to us all. Though we hoped that drenching rain would not drive us inside, we are nonetheless grateful to be gathered on solid ground—in more ways than one.
This gathering honors the efforts who made this event possible—but it also marks something larger. With this dedication, we stitch our personal stories into a grand tapestry of renewal and resistance that stretches back beyond the founding of our nation. Our gathering today may be modest in size, but the thread of historical continuity our gathering represents is mighty and grand.
The Liberty Tree Tradition
The original Liberty Tree stood on Boston Common, where colonists gathered in 1765 to protest the Stamp Act. That particular leafy elm—a species once common across our landscape—became a powerful symbol of defiance and freedom in the years leading up to American independence. Other towns soon planted their own liberty trees, under whose shade people would gather to publicly recommit themselves to the great cause of liberty..
Initial Response to the Storm
When I heard that our college’s liberty tree had fallen during a storm—just hours after the State of the Union Address—I confess I found this coincidence unsettling. Like so many others, I had felt a steady unease at the near-daily litany of disconcerting news–of the erosion of liberty and the rise of arbitrary power.
The timing felt ominous, even uncanny.
A Changed Perspective: Leaning Into Hope
Since my initial response, I have felt a change in perspective. Two things, in particular, have lifted my spirits.
First, the call to replant our liberty tree came from students. When the torch of liberty is carried by those who will need it longest, our future cannot be bleak.
Second, I subsequently learned that the original Liberty Tree of Boston was deliberately destroyed in 1775 by loyalists to the King who believed, mistakenly and naively, that by cutting down a symbol of liberty they could destroy our yearning for liberty.
History has long shown that tyrants try to tame the soul through violence to the body. Such tactics, while dreadful, are always, if only eventually, a losing effort. Bodies and trees are things, and things eventually break. But ideals do not. Our predecessors knew that. It’s worth noting that the great Boston elm was cut down a year prior to the writing of the Declaration of Independence. When that tree was cut down, the colonists were just getting warmed up. Their resolve reminds us that the destruction of a symbol can reawaken the cause it represents.
The PerennialFight for Liberty
That we are here for a re-dedication to liberty seems to me perfectly fitting.
Liberty is never won once and thereby forever secured. Each generation must fight for it anew.
But why is that?
It’s a question worth our contemplation if but briefly here.
We know that liberty is priceless.
We know that liberty is deeply, if mysteriously, connected to our dignity, and also deeply, if mysteriously, connected to our respective capacities to know truth and to exercise moral judgement, to be self-governing creatures.
We know, more prosaically, that political liberty is our best hope for living an ordinary beautiful life.
We also know that liberty is natural; we naturally yearn to be free.
But if freedom is priceless, beautiful, integral to who we are as a species, and natural, why is it so very difficult to secure? Why must we re-dedicate ourselves time and again to its tenuous enshrinement?
I believe the reason is this: Our nature as human beings is neither simple nor simply good. The longing for freedom may well be an impulse rooted in human nature, but it is hardly our only impulse.
We long for liberty, but we also seek to master our surroundings. We seek to control others.
Our natural impulses, in other words, are insufficient to lead to political liberty. We easily convince ourselves that our liberty requires the limitation of someone else’s.
But maximum freedom for one and freedom for all are not the same thing. If they were, our ancient human story would not be so very sad, and we would not need to continually re-dedicate ourselves to the cause of liberty.
Our natural impulses must be educated, refined, enlarged.
And this is where the liberal arts enter the scene. Liberty may be natural to the individual, but political liberty—liberty shared fairly by an entire populace—remains an uncommon and worthy achievement. It must be learned by trial and error, taught, rehearsed, and defended, sometimes by force.
It is not natural instinct that tells us our own liberty is bound to that of our neighbors. That is a learned truth. And it must be learned again and again.
Liberty is never established once and for all.
A liberal arts education teaches the essential truth that we are interconnected. Our own liberty depends upon the liberty of others. Our security depends on the security of others.
We all know that. Of course. This seems pretty basic, to be blunt. But there is a world of difference between repeating the Pledge of Allegiance by rote, or standing respectfully during the National Anthem, and absorbing in our souls the value of political liberty and the preconditions for its flourishing.
A liberal arts education helps us absorb these deeper truths. History, sociology, poetry, psychology, and the arts teach us that liberty, properly understood, is not merely individual but reciprocal. We must discover that our own liberty is no more valuable than our neighbor’s.
We must learn that the rule of law applied only to some is not the rule of law at all but rather selective oppression–or, as James Madison described it, rule by faction.
The universal claims of liberty for all is not an instinctual thought. It must be learned. And re-learned. Our dignity as a race of moral beings requires something higher than each of us enjoying our own liberty while exercising dominion over others: it requires mutual restraint, mutual respect, and mutual commitment to the liberty of all.
Alexander Hamilton, writing in The Federalist Papers, spoke of our collective liberty, dignity, and happiness as a piece—as intertwined. And here, in this place of learning, we remember that our dignity as a people demands liberty not for some, but for all.
Thank you for listening, and thank you for your patience.
Via AZPM: U.S. citizen in Arizona detained by immigration officials for 10 days
. Basically he ended up being detained because he was brown in the wrong place without his papers. This is inevitable when there is such an emphasis on deportations, as law enforcement will racially profile, whether consciously or not.
Via the NYT: White House Assesses Ways to Persuade Women to Have More Children
. (sorry, I am out of gift links to the Times). First, this sounds just like people like Viktor Orbán. Second, I am no expert on these policies, but experts I have read state that these policies do not work. BTW, if the administration thinks we need more people in the US, there is an easy way to make that happen: make immigrating easier.
And you have to love this.
“Look at the number of kids that major leaders in the administration have,” Ms. Collins said, adding: “You didn’t hear about kids in the same way under Biden.”
[…]
Much of the movement is built around promoting a very specific idea of what constitutes a family — one that includes marriage between a man and a woman, and leaves out many families that don’t conform to traditional gender roles or family structures. In contrast to the intense emphasis on cost cutting so far during Mr. Trump’s second term, this focus on families could result in spending more money to back a new set of priorities.
First, as one may recall, Biden had four children. His first daughter was killed in a car accident along with his first wife and one of his sons famously died of brain cancer. He talked about his kids, you know, a lot.
Second, in terms “a very specific idea of what constitutes a family,” you mean like major leaders who have six children with three marriages, two of which ended in divorce? (And where one of the daughters is almost entirely ignored?). Or the kind of major leader who has at least 14 children with multiple women, only two of whom he married?
I guess having families that don’t conform to traditional family structures is just for the little people.
It is unclear precisely when Musk will leave the government; his status as a special government employee is expected to expire at the end of May. The billionaire is ready to exit because he is tired of fielding what he views as a slew of nasty and unethical attacks from the political left, according to a person familiar with his thinking. He believes his departure will not diminish the power or work of DOGE, his brainchild, the person said, noting that DOGE team members are already established across scores of federal agencies. DOGE stands for the Department of Government Efficiency, though it is not a Cabinet-level agency.
Funny, he has faded since he failed to deliver that Wisconsin Supreme Court seat. Plus, he is likely getting bored with his new toy.
“No one can say DOGE has not achieved a historic amount of success. The results speak for themselves,” said a senior White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
I can. I can say that. And a lot of other people can, too. The results do, in fact, speak for themselves: diminished state capacity to do important work while cruel and unnecessarily disrupting the lives of thousands of people to achieve a pittance of “savings.” Heckuva job, Muskie.
OTB relies on its readers to support it. Please consider helping by becoming a monthly contributor through Patreon
or making a one-time contribution via PayPal
. Thanks for your consideration.
Not surprisingly, unleashing a set of wildly unpopular policies that has, among other things, destroyed billions of dollars worth of retirement savings, has had a negative impact on President Trump’s approval. More surprisingly, frustrations about the failure to stop Trump—and internal disagreements over how best to respond to him—have seemingly hurt Democrats even more.
Pew Research Center
(“Trump’s Job Rating Drops, Key Policies Draw Majority Disapproval as He Nears 100 Days“):
With President Donald Trump’s second term approaching its 100-day mark, 40% of Americans approve of how he’s handling the job – a decline of 7 percentage points from February.
And, even as Trump continues to receive high marks from his strongest supporters, several of his key policy actions are viewed more negatively than positively by the public:
59% of Americans disapprove of the administration’s tariff increases, while 39% approve.
Trump’s use of executive authority also comes in for criticism: 51% of U.S. adults say he is setting too much policy via executive order. Far smaller shares say he is doing about the right amount (27%) or too little (5%) through executive orders.
With many of the administration’s actions facing legal challenges in federal courts
, there is widespread – largely bipartisan – sentiment that the administration would have to end an action if a federal court deemed it illegal.
78% say the Trump administration should have to follow a federal court’s ruling, rising to 88% if the Supreme Court were to issue the ruling.
91% of Democrats and 65% of Republicans say the administration would need to stop an action if a federal court ruled it illegal, rising to 95% of Democrats and 82% of Republicans for a Supreme Court ruling.
Gallup
(“Trump’s First-Quarter Approval Rating Below Average, at 45%“):
President Donald Trump is closing out the first quarter of his second term in office with an average 45% job approval rating, higher than the 41% earned in his first term
but well below all other post-World War II presidents elected in the U.S. The average first-quarter rating for all presidents elected from 1952 to 2020 is 60%.
[…]
Trump’s first-quarter average for his second term includes his latest 44% approval rating, from an April 1-14 poll, with 53% of Americans currently disapproving of the way he is handling his job. This is in line with the previous three readings
during his second term. Of these, his highest individual approval rating this year was the first one — 47% in January
.
Partisans’ ratings of Trump are stable, with 90% of Republicans and 4% of Democrats expressing approval of the president’s job performance. Independents’ current 37% approval has been steady since February but is nine percentage points lower than their inaugural rating of Trump.
The latest poll was conducted during a period of economic turbulence in the U.S. as positive employment and gross domestic product reports in early April were overshadowed by Trump’s announcement of sweeping tariffs on April 2. Those tariffs triggered a sharp stock market decline. Despite a temporary 90-day pause on some tariffs by Trump on April 9 and the easing of other terms since then, market instability has persisted. Some economists warn of a potential recession, citing declining consumer confidence, volatile markets and signs of slowing growth.
NYT
(“Trump’s Approval Rating Has Been Falling Steadily, Polling Average Shows“):
President Trump’s job approval rating has fallen steadily during his first three months in office, according to a New York Times average of polling.
Mr. Trump’s approval rating has sunk to about 45 percent, down from 52 percent one week after he took office. Around half of the country now disapproves of his performance, the polling shows.
American presidents typically enter office with a groundswell of support that wanes over time. But Mr. Trump’s approval has been dropping slightly faster than that of his predecessors.
Mr. Trump started his term with the second-lowest approval rating for a president in modern history. The only recent president to have started in a worse position was Mr. Trump the first time he took office.
[…]
Mr. Trump is following through on many of the promises he made as a candidate, but even some supporters have registered concerns about some of his actions. In particular, the sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries have rankled allies and adversaries. The trade war plunged global economic markets into turmoil, before Mr. Trump paused the tariffs for 90 days, citing talks with other countries about new trade deals.
We’re having problems uploading images at the moment but trendline at RealClearPolitics
is clear: after a few weeks of having higher approval than disapproval, Trump has been underwater since March 11.
I would hold out more hope that this would lead to a reining in but, alas, the polls also show another consistent trend: Trump’s support remains sky high among Republicans. Moreover, Democrats are taking more heat than Republicans for the state of affairs.
Pew:
The GOP is viewed more favorably than the Democratic Party, a shift from recent years. Views of the Republican Party have trended more positive over the last year, and 43% now have a favorable view. Views of the Democratic Party are little changed over the last few years, with 38% now expressing a favorable view.
Gallup:
Partisans’ ratings of Trump are stable, with 90% of Republicans and 4% of Democrats expressing approval of the president’s job performance. Independents’ current 37% approval has been steady since February but is nine percentage points lower than their inaugural rating of Trump.
[…]
Amid the economic uncertainty in April, 44% of U.S. adults say they have confidence in Trump to recommend or do the right thing for the economy, including 30% with “a great deal” of confidence and 14% with “a fair amount.” Meanwhile, a majority of Americans indicate they have either “only a little” confidence in the president (11%) or “almost none” (44%).
Trust in the economic judgment of all other U.S. leaders rated in the poll is weaker than for Trump, with fewer than four in 10 Americans saying they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in the Republican leaders in Congress in general (39%), Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell (37%), Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (36%) and Senate Republican Leader John Thune (33%).
Public confidence in U.S. Democratic leaders’ economic handling is even lower, including for House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (30%), Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (25%) and the Democratic leaders in Congress in general (25%).
One presumes that, so long as Republicans remain enthusiastic, Trump will be undaunted.
That the state of affairs is hurting Democrats more than Republicans, who control the White House and have slim majorities in both Houses of Congress, seems incongruous. But I presume it’s because Democrats are frustrated with the inability of their leaders to stop Trump.
The Atlantic’s John Hendrickson
(“What the Democratic Infighting Reveals“) sees something broader happening.
The phrase in disarray has dogged the Democratic Party for years, but what’s happening now is something more profound and consequential. As Donald Trump approaches the 100th day of his second term, Democrats appear to lack a shared understanding of the depth of their situation—never mind how to address
it.
Today’s Democratic infighting isn’t merely about how to win in 2026 or 2028. Rather, it’s an asymmetrical conversation about priorities. Should Democrats focus on fighting Trump’s autocratic actions and on pushing harder than ever to ensure the rights of vulnerable communities? Or should they tack to the middle to woo disillusioned Trump voters? Meanwhile, Democrats also need to figure out how to serve voters in their own base who are fed up with the party’s ineffectiveness. A recent Gallup poll
was, in a word, abysmal, finding that only 25 percent of respondents had confidence in Democratic congressional leaders—an all-time low.
[…]
While Trump keeps rolling back LGBTQ rights, certain
Democrats appear to view the fight for transgender liberties, for example, as merely a losing campaign issue and relic of the mid-2010s culture war. In the eyes of some Democrats, the obligation to push back against Trumpism seems sublimated to the more practical goals of winning elections and securing majorities. But in trying to woo disaffected Trump voters, they may be disaffecting loyal Democratic voters who fear the party is abandoning important issues.
[…]
What all this Democratic infighting has ultimately revealed is that the party has entered its “post” era. Democrats are post-Biden, post-Harris, post-Obama. Some would like to believe that the party is alternatively post-Sanders or post-Carville. But another way to look at it is that Democrats have entered a “pre” era. The lack of clear direction may not instill much confidence among Democratic voters, but open-endedness could be an opportunity for the party. The next leader may soon step up. But for that leader to rise, everyone needs to get out of one another’s way.
That the party is having a fight over its future is likely healthy for the long term. But it puts it on a back foot in trying to deal with the present moment.
Like it or not, Donald Trump has been the central figure in American politics for a decade now. His infamous ride down the escalator at his eponymous tower to announce his run for the 2016 Republican nomination
was June 16, 2015. Hardly a day has gone by since—including during the four-year presidency of Joe Biden—when Trump wasn’t the most prominent figure in political news coverage.
Democrats have had conflicting messages. On the one hand, Trump is an existential threat to American democracy and it is everyone’s duty to rally against him. On the other hand, much of the leadership remains committed to pushing the envelope on progressive policies that make it harder to attract the support of the sort of people who voted for John McCain and Mitt Romney but find Trump repugnant.
It would seem intuitive that the mere existence of Trump, the most unpopular President ever, as the leader of the opposition would render the only viable alternative—the Democratic Party—popular. But it hasn’t worked out that way.
While the James Carvilles of the world are urging the party to become a more centrist, catch-all party, the trend is decidedly in the other direction. As the Nancy Pelosis and Dick Durbins fade into retirement, they’ll naturally be replaced by significantly younger, more progressive politicians. That’ll be more satisfying for most of the nominating electorate but a less effective counter to MAGA extremism.
OTB relies on its readers to support it. Please consider helping by becoming a monthly contributor through Patreon
or making a one-time contribution via PayPal
. Thanks for your consideration.