When Trump Is Rotting In His Grave, Will The Democratic Party Be Better Or Worse From The Calamity?

"Political Wilderness" by Nancy Ohanian

Los Angeles County is a lot more than L.A., the city. For starters, the city’s population was 3,820,914 last year; the county’s was 9,663,345. There are more people in Los Angeles County than in 40 states! And the county has been a blue bastion for as long as most people can remember. The last Republican presidential candidate who won was Reagan 40 years ago.

2024- Harris- 64.8%

2020- Biden- 70.7%

2016- Hillary- 71.8%

2012- Obama- 69.7%

2008- Obama- 69.2%

2004- Kerry- 63.1%

2000- Gore- 63.5%

1996- Clinton- 51.1% (won 3 way race)

1992- Clinton- 46.0% (won 3 way race)

1988- Dukakis- 51.9%

1984- Reagan- 54.5%

L.A. County has a very heavy Latino plurality: 48.6%. Second comes non-Hispanic whites with 25.3%, Asians make up 15% and Blacks make up 9%. In 1994 Gov. Pete Wilson succeeded in passing a blatantly racist anti-Hispanic initiative, Prop 187. That was the end of GOP chances to win support from most Hispanics. 2024 may go down in history as the year that magic for Democrats began to dissipate. When digging into the L.A. County presidential election results for Mother Jones last week, Noah Lanard discovered immense slippage in Democratic support among Latinos. He even spoke with one moron from Guatemala who supported Trump because she wants to get rid of undocumented troublemakers, not understanding that because she is also an “ilegal” she is just as vulnerable to deportation as they are. Other Latinos whose parents, who entered the U.S. illegally, hate more recent Venezuelan undocumented immigrants because they have an easier time of assimilating.

He went to one city, Huntington Park, in the southeast part of the county, where 97% of the population is Latino. In 2016 Trump win just 8% of the vote, in some precincts beaten by Jill Stein. Trump did a lot better among working class Latinos (and Asians) this year. “Democrats,” wrote Lanard, “have lost more support in Southeast Los Angeles than any other part of Los Angeles County. Democrats’ combined margin of victory in nine cities in the area, which are more than 90 percent Latino on average, has declined by nearly 40 percent since 2016. Trump has gone from getting less than 10 percent of votes to nearly 30 percent. This is not just a function of Democrats staying home. Trump received more than three times as many votes this year in Southeast Los Angeles than he did during his first presidential run. While the data makes clear that voters in largely working-class Latino areas have moved right, the results do not reveal how individual Latinos who live in more mixed (and often richer) parts of Los Angeles voted. Compared to Southeast Los Angeles, Democrats’ have lost less support since 2016 in more middle-class majority-Latino cities, although those cities remain more conservative overall.”

He wrote that “a national trend— working-class Asian and Latino voters shifting to Republicans, and upper-class voters choosing Democrats— can be seen in miniature in Los Angeles County… It also doesn't help that Democrats— largely as a result of Republican opposition— have been unable to deliver on their promises to provide legal status to family members of some of the voters now turning against them.”

A few days later, Elena Schneider, reporting for Politico, looked at “the massive hole Dems are in” nationally. Focus groups from a Democratic organization found that “even voters who previously backed Democrats cast the party as weak and overly focused on diversity and elites… Without a clear party leader and with losses across nearly every demographic in November, Democrats are walking into a second Trump presidency without a unified strategy to improve their electoral prospects… ‘This weakness they see, [Democrats] not getting things done, not being able to actually fight for people— is something that needs to be figured out,’ [Navigator director of polling Rachael] Russell said. ‘It might not be the message, it might be the policy. It might be something a little bit deeper that has to be addressed by the party.’… Even though the focus group voters did not solely blame Harris for their distaste of the Democratic Party, they also weren’t happy about her candidacy. Participants described her as ‘inauthentic,’ ‘very dishonest’ and ‘did not seem competent.’”

And yet… she wants to run again in 2028 and run for governor of California in between, just as Richard Nixon did after his narrow loss (49.72% to 49.55%) to JFK in 1960. Writing for Salon yesterday, Paul Rosenberg looked at the shortcomings of the 2 generations of the Democratic Party’s disastrous embrace of neoliberalism. “[B]oth Obama and Harris,” he wrote, “exemplified personality-focused politics, which have been dominant since the Reagan era and inherently favors performative splash over solving fundamental problems and party-building as the necessary path to doing that… [E]lite leadership has inherent limitations, and can't restrain itself from undermining the common good in the long run— as the climate crisis so vividly demonstrates. As a result, the worldwide resurgence of authoritarianism threatens humanity’s future, feeding off the failure of liberal democracy to deliver on its promises. So the problem is not a single electoral defeat, or even a party facing a string of them. It is the problem of how to fundamentally transform our politics. Realistically, any possible solutions must be developed and advanced within, and around, the Democratic Party.”

In my article on "Why Kamala Harris lost," I argued that the neoliberal world order crumbling in the aftermath of the pandemic set the stage for worldwide incumbent losses this year. Democrats might have avoided that fate had they passed a robust package of reforms exemplifying a "politics of care," which enjoyed supermajority popular support, but they were thwarted by Republicans and corporate Democrats in the Senate. This specific example reflected a more general problem: Our political system and structures are not set up “to promote the general welfare,” as the preamble to the Constitution promises. 

To realign our system with that promise, we must refocus our politics around solving major policy questions through public deliberation, or a "politics of care and deliberation." In my follow-up article on strengthening democracy, I outlined four ways to do just that: citizens’ assemblies, public interest polling, a citizens’ agenda for political journalism, and reforming social media to promote deliberation. I now want to look at realistic efforts to reform the Democratic Party, which in turn can help lead to deeper systemic transformation.

A model for those efforts was recently laid out by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which issued a memo with a roadmap for rebuilding and reorienting the party, proposing "four core principles" for the next Democratic National Committee chair:

• Reform, restructure and rebrand the party from the ground up and commit to a 50-state strategy that builds power through state parties;

• Embrace grassroots donors and reject special interest and dark money, reinstating the DNC's 2008 ban on corporate PAC donations, and pushing to prohibit super PAC spending in state primaries;

• Rebuild the party's multiracial, working-class base by uplifting poor, low-, and middle-income voices and concerns;

• Highlight recent electoral successes while working to build broad coalitions to win elections. 

… The need for a 50-state strategy should be obvious, given Democrats’ worsening weakness virtually everywhere outside the battleground states, where they managed to keep things relatively close. Elsewhere, they lost ground far more dramatically— losing the key Senate races in Montana and Ohio even as progressive ballot measures passed. The party's well-known failure to invest in rural red states is only one side of this story, since it lost ground in blue states and major cities as well. But it’s clearly important, and addressed at length in "Harvest the Vote: How Democrats Can Win Again in Rural America" by Nebraska Democratic chair Jane Fleming Kleeb. So I sought out Kleeb's perspective once again.

“We have to break out of the D.C.-centric thinking and model that concentrates messaging into talking points which often have no relevance and concentrates funding into a handful of states,” she told me. “We aren't running a national party. We are running a battleground-state party focused on the White House rather than fighting for voters and securing wins up and down the ballot in every single state and territory.

“The vast majority of resources should be going to the states to make critical messaging and party-building investments so we can win elections everywhere, year after year," she continued. "This sets us up as a stronger party to then win the White House.” To do that, she added, “We've gotta get out of our heads and get back into communities, so our leaders are talking like our base again, rather than like a robot using a message box and white paper.”

…Four days before Joe Manchin killed [Build Back Better] in December 2021, Data for Progress released polling showing greater than two-to-one support for a full suite of care-oriented policies: universal pre-K, paid family and medical leave, investments in child care to limit costs, long-term care for seniors and people with disabilities. While Manchin later supported a much-diminished bill (the so-called Inflation Reduction Act), those care-oriented policies were not just abandoned but virtually forgotten. Returning them to the center of our politics should be a top priority for Democrats, integrated into whatever else they do. The process of focus groups, public interest polling and citizens assemblies could help make that happen. 

More than three years ago, I proposed that "public health" could be understood as the key to saving democracy from fascism. It could “serve as a long-term, overarching framework to reframe our politics, to provide us with new common sense in addressing a wide range of diverse issues by highlighting common themes and connecting what works.” 

The fact that our entire health care system is under attack, with the crown jewel of vaccination squarely in the crosshairs, doesn’t mean we should shy away from that potential. If anything, the frontal assault on public health should help us understand the central role it can play in unifying us politically, just as it plays a central role in protecting us.  

In that frame of mind, we can look at all the attacks that Donald Trump and his followers are prepared to unleash— on immigrants, on the trans community, on women seeking abortion care, on freedom of expression and so on— as attacks on our collective public health that require a public health response— that is, not a response focused on protecting isolated individuals, but on protecting all of us as members of the human community, who share a profound a interest in protecting our bodies, our environment and our future. 

Threats to jail Democratic mayors or governors who defy or oppose Trump's deportation plans, for instance, would provide the perfect occasion to convene a citizens assembly on the topic. It’s one thing to witness a high-stakes political drama between high-profile public officials. It’s quite another if that can become an occasion for prolonged and thoughtful public deliberation. The entire nature of the confrontation could be changed by doing that. Fascism feeds on spectacle, after all, particularly spectacles of domination and cruelty. Democracy feeds on deliberation, on openness, on building community. We should give the public much more of those things. That's the key to transforming and rebuilding the Democratic Party, and creating a better future for everyone. 

The rejection— at the insistence of fossilized and vengeful Nancy Pelosi— of AOC’s bid to lead the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee, for another elderly centrist indicates that the Democratic Party is probably too far gone for any of Rosenberg’s prescriptions. Eternal optimist Jamie Raskin, though, said AOC’s “future is dazzlingly bright. She’s only in her third term, and it shows that she’s got remarkable support that she could come even that close… She is a member of growing influence within the caucus, and she obviously has extraordinary support in the country. She speaks to millions of young people who may not be relating to other members of Congress right now. It’s really just a question of where she wants to position herself.

Other Democrats went even further, urging Democratic leaders to carve out a special position for Ocasio-Cortez to capitalize on her distinctive popularity and powers of communication.

“I think it’s a terrible mistake not to bring her into the fold and give her a very important position, because she brings with her a group of people that, obviously, is slipping away from us. And we need her, we have to find a place for her,” Rep. Juan Vargas (D-CA) said. “This is a terrible missed opportunity if we don’t.”

Asked when such a promotion should occur, Vargas didn’t skip a beat.

“We need her right now. She has the best communication skills out of all of us,” he said.

“What we need to do is everyone has to stand back a little and say, ‘OK, what are we doing right and what are we doing wrong?’” Vargas continued. “One of the things that we’re doing wrong is not communicating with young people. We’re doing that wrong. Who communicates the best with young people in our whole caucus, by far? She does. And so let’s find a place and give her a prominent spot, whatever that is. Figure it out. Let’s figure out something new.”

“We can’t do things the way we used to, because obviously that’s not working.”

…Vargas said whatever lingering tensions remain between Ocasio-Cortez and more [conservative, corporate] Democrats should be swept under the rug.

“If people have hard feelings, get over it, guys. We lost. We got our asses kicked. Let’s get on offense here,” Vargas said. “If you’re a coach— and I coached some baseball for a while— you put your best players out there when you need ’em. This is our best player. Why the hell’s she sitting on the bench? Get her off the bench. Get her in the game.”

In John Nichols’ look at the progressives who will guide us through the darkness for The Nation yesterday, he started with AOC. In one of the best-received speeches at the Democratic National Convention, AOC said “There is nothing wrong with working for a living. Imagine having leaders who understand that,” to a hallful of cheering delegates. “Along with her close ally, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders,” wrote Nichols, ‘Ocasio-Cortez hit the fall campaign trail for Democrats in races from Texas to Wisconsin. Her appearances drew large and diverse crowds that recognized her as a savvy advocate for the bolder messaging that the party’s national ticket needed to adopt, including support for a ceasefire in Gaza, Medicare for All, and a Green New Deal. That turnout speaks to young voters’ passionate desire for a real response to the climate crisis as well as an economy that works for them. At a time when Harris’s defeat has Democrats struggling to figure out how to better connect with workers in general and young workers in particular, Ocasio-Cortez recognizes the need for her party to engage disenchanted voters with stances on issues— and fresh tactics— that are feared by a consultant class that clings to strategies that appeal to big donors but not to voters. Ocasio-Cortez is going to keep pushing Democratic insiders beyond their comfort zones.”

Nichols also brought up Jimmy Williams Jr of “the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, which represents 140,000 workers, has a well-earned reputation for political savvy and progressivism. Both were on display in 2024. IUPAT… campaigned hard for Harris— alongside other unions and union leaders— and their work paid off, with the Democratic ticket winning levels of support among union members that were comparable to what Biden received in 2020. But the Democrats still lost, because, Williams argues, they did not mount a campaign that connected with nonunion workers. ‘[The] Democratic Party has continued to fail to prioritize a strong, working class message that addressed issues that really matter to workers,’ Williams said shortly after Harris’s defeat. ‘The party did not make a positive case for why workers should vote for them, only that they were not Donald Trump.’ This is the kind of blunt talk that Democratic leaders need to hear. It is also typical of Williams and his union, which was one of the first to call for a ceasefire in Gaza and is exploring how to divest the IUPAT pension fund from firms that facilitate violence against Palestinians. On these issues and so many others, Williams says of the union: ‘We’re not gonna back down.’” 

There were more than a dozen other suggestions but he ended with this song, “Hind’s Hall,” by rapper Macklemore. “At a point when campuses were cracking down on student protests in solidarity with Gaza,” wrote Nichols, “when Republican leaders in Congress were attacking university presidents who tolerated even modest dissent, and when too many media outlets were smearing students for objecting to what the International Court of Justice would determine was a ‘plausible’ case of genocide, the Seattle rapper Macklemore released the year’s most powerful protest song. ‘Hind’s Hall’ highlights the demands made by students at Columbia University and on many other campuses: that colleges and universities divest from firms with ties to the Israeli military. ‘What is threatening about divesting and wanting peace?’ Macklemore asks. At least some people were listening: The song climbed high on music charts around the world.”

The people, they won't leave

What is threatenin' about divesting and wantin' peace?

The problem isn't the protests, it's what they're protesting

It goes against what our country is funding

(Hey) Block the barricade until Palestine is free

(Hey) Block the barricade until Palestine is free

When I was seven, I learned a lesson from Cube and Eazy-E

What was it again? Oh yeah, fuck the police (woo)

Actors in badges protecting property

And a system that was designed by white supremacy (brrt)

But the people are in the streets

You can pay off Meta, you can't pay off me

Politicians who serve by any means

AIPAC, CUFI, and all the companies

You see, we sell fear around the land of the free

But this generation here is about to cut the strings

You can ban TikTok, take us out the algorithm

But it's too late, we've seen the truth, we bear witness

Seen the rubble, the buildings, the mothers and the children

And all the men that you murdered, and then we see how you spin it

Who gets the right to defend and who gets the right of resistance

Has always been about dollars and the color of your pigment, but

White supremacy is finally on blast

Screamin', "Free Palestine" 'til they're home at last

We see the lies in 'em

Claimin' it's antisemitic to be anti-Zionist

I've seen Jewish brothers and sisters out there and ridin' in

Solidarity and screamin', "Free Palestine" with them

Organizin', unlearnin' and finally cuttin' ties with

A state that's gotta rely on an apartheid system

To uphold an occupyin' violent

History been repeating for the last seventy-five

The Nakba never ended, the colonizer lied (woo)

If students in tents posted on the lawn

Occupyin' the quad is really against the law

And a reason to call in the police and their squad

Where does genocide land in your definition, huh? (Hey-hey)

Destroyin' every college in Gaza and every mosque

Pushin' everyone into Rafah and droppin' bombs

The blood is on your hands, Biden, we can see it all

And fuck no, I'm not votin' for you in the fall (woo)

Undecided

You can't twist the truth, the people out here united

Never be defeated when freedom's on the horizon

Yet the music industry's quiet, complicit in their platform of silence (hey, woo)

What happened to the artist? What d'you got to say?

If I was on a label, you could drop me today

I'd be fine with it 'cause the heart fed my page

I want a ceasefire, fuck a response from Drake (woo)

What you willin' to risk? What you willin' to give?

What if you were in Gaza? What if those were your kids?

If the West was pretendin' that you didn't exist

You'd want the world to stand up and the students finally did, let's get it (woo)