First, an apology – the nation (if not the world) is full of political noise right now, and I debated whether to contribute to it. However, my takeaways from the recent mid-term elections seem to be a little different from what is being reported, so I decided to bend your ear a little this time. I hope that what I have to say won’t be too obnoxious, and that you’ll forgive me, both for contributing to the general babble and for choosing a title that is deliberately provocative.
I should also say that during my adult life (i.e. as a voter), both parties have deeply frustrated me. As a result, I tend to vote for candidates that I think will be the best at their job from the choices available. I have cast votes for candidates from parties all over the spectrum and for candidates running independently. I don’t love or hate one political party over another, and there have been individual candidates that I would or wouldn’t support no matter which party they belonged to.
As anyone not hidden under a rock or lost in a miasma of delusion knows, the Democratic party saw sweeping victories in the elections held last week. When the new members of the House and Senate take their seats in January, the Democrats will hold both chambers of Congress with their largest majority in over a generation.
Commentators on the right have had a range of responses: some are claiming the election was fraudulent in some way (which recently seems to be a default position, but only when they lose). Others are crying woe, that soon the communist, transgender, or Islamic extremists (or some combination of the three) will hold sway and force the country into a totalitarian regime. Many on the left are celebrating this as a shift in the American consciousness, an embrace of more progressive policy driven by the ideals of the Democratic party.
I personally don’t think any of these scenarios are likely. In fact, I’m not sure this last round of elections was one that the Democrats won. I think that this was more an expression of frustration at what people see as the recent failure of the Republican party to look after the issues facing most people. People are irritated at the corruption and mismanagement that has largely defined government recently. The president’s statements about the economy have not reassured the public, but have rather pointed to the success of America’s wealthiest corporations and individuals. This disconnect from the plight of ordinary Americans – people who must go out and hustle for whatever money they have, in other words – shows a disconnect that isn’t quite “let them eat cake,” but it’s close enough that people are upset.
Republicans know that anger and fear are great motivators. Their talking points and campaign ads have focused on those very things. Their trouble is that they’ve been selling fear and anger of marginalized groups of people: immigrants, the LGBTQ+ community, non-Christians. People in the minority, in other words, particularly when it comes to political clout.
Democrats, on the other hand, have typically tended to focus on more nebulous ideas: hope for the future, a more humane approach to people on the outside, a more generous foreign policy. While these are good ideas, they generally don’t get people to the polls. When there’s a low turnout, the result is usually not favorable for progressive candidates. When more people show up, things tend to shift blue.
What I think happened this time is that people still voted based on fear and anger, but it was fear and anger directed at the Republicans. People are less afraid of the immigrants around them than they are of financial insolvency. They’re angrier at the corruption that seems to surround this administration like a swarm of flies than they are at the idea that a drag queen might be reading to children somewhere. They didn’t vote for communism; they voted against the war and tariffs that drive everyday costs up while their earning power recedes.
The Democrats haven’t won – the Republicans have lost.
The Democratic party, and particularly the DNC, aren’t immune to mismanagement either. For years, the Democrats have run candidates that their base didn’t particularly want, but who seemed to be rewarded their candidacy for long-term service to the party. This has turned them into the party of “Is Pepsi okay?” For better or worse, the Republican candidates have been people you loved or hated, but couldn’t ignore. The Democratic position has mostly just been “We’re not them.”
What made this election different was that the Democratic candidates in the most-publicized races were often young, energetic candidates who got people excited. Many of them were not career politicians, and their previous political experience had mostly been away from the larger, brighter stages. Furthermore, these vibrant candidates were able to talk about corruption and the economy – the things that make the public angry and afraid. By comparison, their opponents looked like business as usual – ensconced in ivory towers (or perhaps a golden ballroom is a more pertinent image), and out of touch with the practical concerns of the voting public. In short, the Democrats were able to frame the political discourse and shape the narrative in their favor, using exactly the same methods that have worked so well for Republicans in recent times.
The Democrats have an opportunity that they haven’t had for ages, but I believe the political capital they currently hold, while real, will have a short shelf-life. While I agree with their stated intention to begin investigations into various allegations of corruption, I think it’s important that they don’t lose sight of what they can do to improve life for all Americans. The Democratic party has always touted policy to care for the sick, the poor, the old, and the young, and everyone either has or will become part of at least one of these groups eventually. Most of the social programs we have to care for these groups began life as Democratic initiatives – and were decried as socialism by their opponents. If they can improve life for ordinary people as quickly and drastically as it has declined recently, they can gain longer-lasting support.
They also need to get better at accentuating the positive. I think the Biden administration attempted to fix things that needed fixing, but it went about it in a way that didn’t mean much to most people. I don’t think he was a particularly bad president; I think he was perceived as less successful because he wasn’t very good at talking about the successes he had, and some of the opportunities that came along were at least partially squandered through half-measures and lackluster execution. The 2024 campaign was handled especially badly, with Biden hanging on long past the point when his own party begged him to quit. Kamala Harris might have made a good president, but we’ll never know, because she came to the game late, and had to carry both the freight of the shaky-looking Biden administration and her own baggage. It’s unclear to what extent voters were swayed by the fact that she’s a woman, but it can’t be counted out, as frustrating as that is. Kamala excited the public – but it was largely the wrong public, and she excited them in a negative way.
So, I don’t think the Democrats have completely won yet. I think they can win in a more permanent way, by keeping that vitality, by acting fast to address the biggest concerns of the average citizen. The problem with running on reform is that you can’t plausibly do it when you’re the incumbent – unless you demonstrate definitively that you’re in the process of actively pursuing the reform that we desperately need. If they do it right, they’ll demonstrate competence and compassion, and prove to the American people that they can and should lead.
They could still blow it, but I hope for the sake of all of us, left or right, that they won’t.
