Democrats and the Question of Total Resistance

The Democratic Party has been in a state of crisis ever since the election of Donald Trump over one month ago. In addition to questions of strategy and leadership, Democrats have wondered how much they should support some of the nascent policies coming out of the Trump transition team. A few weeks ago, Bernie Sanders gained national attention with his pledge to work with Elon Musk to reduce spending in the Pentagon. New Jersey Senator Cory Booker also tweeted in support of general health programs being discussed by potential HHS head Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Supporters of conciliation believe that they can expose Trump’s populist reputation for the sham that it is. They remember the constant Infrastructure Weeks that never led to an infrastructure bill until Joe Biden took office. They also remember the tax cuts, rampant deregulation, and staffing of the federal government by cronies from big business. The idea is that they will be able to score the occasional victory while also puncturing the image that they believe helped Trump win office.

Resistance vs. Conciliation

Resistance-minded liberals, on the other hand, do not believe in this strategy. As evidence, they point to Trump’s entire first time in office and how little its plutocratic trappings harmed his reelection bid. Trump was able to use bluster and the power of conservative media to hammer home an image that had little to do with his governing approach. Without near-total resistance, these Trump critics believe Republicans will be able to do the same for their own party during the 2026 midterms and beyond.

Resistance to Trump should be the guiding principle of Democrats for the next four years. They do not need to oppose the naming of post offices or the funding of the government. Fighting back on these routine or immensely helpful items would backfire in all instances, like an opposition to COVID relief would have in March 2020. But Democrats can do this without openly embracing Trump’s plans and ideas at this early stage. The party needs to hold a generally confrontational stance towards the president, attacking his overreaches and showing how they would better run the country when they regain control.

The opportunity of a trifecta

A trifecta can be a demoralizing outcome for an opposing party. But it is also an opportunity. Simply saying no and crafting a critical stance can ensure that voters turn to it at the first possible opportunity of a midterm election. 

Furthermore, the opposition party does not have to coalesce around a single approach in order to secure such a victory. Democrats made considerable gains in 1982 and 2018 in the midst of substantial presidential defeats simply by serving as an outlet for discontent. The party will most likely take back control of the House from Mike Johnston and his razor-thin majority. At that point, they will be able to craft a clear narrative for how the party wants to run the 2028 primaries and fight the post-Trump Republicans, which will still clearly be dominated by Trump’s policies.

Democrats need to stop the snarky tweets and half-hearted attempts to agree with Republican ideas about military spending or health. Instead, they need to show that they are an opposition party with its own ideas about how to solve the nation’s problems, ideas that involve a strong military and an embrace of vaccines. A muddled message does nothing more than reinforce the idea that Democrats are in the wilderness after the presidential election. The party needs some sort of identity, if for no other reason than to give them the energy to take back the House in two years.