A party of small tents

Democrats have become a collection of interest groups instead of cohesive political party.

Right now, Democrats seem rudderless and leaderless. While resistance to Trump’s attack on the federal government is creating an organic response that may lead to a revitalized opposition, Democrats need to use this time to reflect on how they got here. They lost an election to an ethically challenged candidate who was broadly unpopular when he left office and yet made an improbable comeback despite negatives that should have rendered him unelectable.

No one single reason caused Kamala Harris to lose to Donald Trump. She ran in a terrible political environment where inflation and costs dominated the economic concerns of most voters. Trump drove up turnout among his rural, uneducated base to sky high rates, just like he has in his previous elections. Educated young people, some because of the war in Gaza, some because they are just disengaged from politics, didn’t show up at levels high enough to offset Trump’s surge voters.

The most disturbing trend for Democrats was losing a significant portion of Hispanic and Black voters, mostly men, to Republicans. Instead of voting along ethnic or racial lines, they voted along cultural ones. They feared the left’s progressive social agenda more than they feared Donald Trump’s racism and xenophobia.

Some of the Democrats' turnout struggles will resolve themselves. A lot of Trump voters only have a history of showing up for him, so once he’s not on the ballot, they will probably stop voting in such large numbers. If 2018 and 2022 are any measure, apathetic younger voters will likely become motivated to vote against some of the GOP’s most draconian legislation, especially if it impacts their lives directly. But the shift among working class people of color has deeper roots that are more difficult to address.

Democrats have developed a split personality. They govern mostly from the center but are defined by their left flank. During Biden’s term, Congress passed more bipartisan legislation than it has since the first term of George W. Bush. Democratic governors in red or purple states like Andy Beshear of Kentucky, Josh Stein of North Carolina, Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Laura Kelly of Kansas, and Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania have high approval ratings even among more conservative voters. Yet, most Americans, or at least swing voters, believe Democrats are focused more on open borders, DEI, and transgender rights than the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, the CHIPs Act, or the gun control bill passed with support of Democrats and Republicans.

Part of the misconception reflects the success of the conservative media ecosystem to reach beyond its base and shape broader public opinion. Part of it comes from the left-wing interest groups controlling much of the party’s national message. The combination has left too many Americans believing that Democrats care more about identity politics than about them. Trump summed up the feeling perfectly in his ad that ended “Kamala is for they/them. Trump is for you.”

The process that resulted in Democrats being held hostage by their left flank began about 20 years ago. First, the McCain Fiengold Act of 2002 weakened state and national parties by sharply restricting large donations from corporations and labor unions while decreasing individual donation limits. Then, Citizens United allowed special interests to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaign activities with little transparency. In response, progressives built a powerful network of issue-oriented nonprofits and affiliated SuperPACs funded by dark money.

Over the next 20 years, the Democratic Party increasingly organized around a coalition of interest groups and their agendas instead of organizing around a defining set of principles. Money that once flowed through political parties went to unions, pro-choice groups, pro-LGBT organizations, environmental groups, various pro-diversity groups, and campaign reform organizations to pay for GOTV operations and independent expenditure advertising. Think EMILY’s List, Human Rights Campaign, Planned Parenthood, League of Conservation Voters, End Citizens United, America Votes to name a few. Different groups moved in-and-out of favor and influence, but the process, and often the leadership staff, stayed the same.

Before the age of SuperPACs, the role of these advocacy organizations was to build public support for their issues and encourage politicians to support them. After Citizens United gave them new financial clout, they began strong-arming candidates to take certain positions and hire certain consultants and staff or risk losing the necessary financial support. They became a pipeline for training and funneling staff to campaigns. Staffers often brought to their jobs the ideological biases of the organizations that trained them.

Democrats had long been the party of equal rights and fighting discrimination against various minority groups, but with the rise of the 501c(4)s, SuperPACs, and other entities, the party became more activist than political. Ideological purity took precedent over political flexibility. The activist class created their own culture, language, and references, often insisting that party loyalists adhere to the new norms. They talked about intersectionality, BIPOC, birthing people, cis gender, and LatinX. Most famously, they insisted on using preferred pronouns in profiles and introductions.

The rise of social media gave the activists more powerful voices. Some became enforcers, accusing people on both sides of the aisle of bigotry or prejudice if they didn’t toe the line. They bullied and intimidated people who they deemed insufficiently progressive. Cancel culture became an enforcement tool and political candidates were expected to fall in line.

Online activists publicly called out people who failed purity tests, including ones long dead. Transgender rights activists attacked people who questioned medical interventions for adolescents and transgender women participating in women’s sports. In the wake of the George Floyd riots, activists demanded, “Defund the police,” a slogan that got wrapped around Democrats. They assigned to the Founding Fathers the same sins as the leaders of the Confederacy. They didn’t just pull down statues of Robert E. Lee, they targeted George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

The new culture alienated much of middle America while it became increasingly entwined with Democratic politics. Candidates worried about getting attacked from their left flank if they pushed back on the new mores. They were also concerned with losing people they perceived as their base voters. Swing voters got left behind as a narrative took root that elections were more dependent on turnout than persuasion.

Instead of a big tent, Democrats have become a bunch of little ones defined by identity or issues. In his bid for Democratic National Committee Chair, Wisconsin Democratic Chair Ben Wikler essentially called them out when he tweeted, “We unite our coalition by making sure everyone’s at the table. As DNC Chair, our leadership team will lift up our full coalition—with Black, Latino, Native, AANHPI, LGBTQ, Youth, Interfaith, Ethnic, Rural, Veteran, and Disability representation.”

I’m not sure that coalition includes a majority of Americans. To win, Democrats need to organize around shared values and goals, like justice, equality, and opportunity, not identities like race, gender, sexuality, or ethnicity. They need to redefine themselves in the eyes of Americans, bringing more people into the party instead of excluding them because they don’t fit into one category or another. They must untangle their brand and message from the grip of activists and advocacy organizations with narrow interests.

To become a bigger tent, Democrats need to either build new institutions or advocate for legislation that empowers political parties and candidate campaign committees. New institutions might not change much. Party-aligned SuperPACs and nonprofits like House Majority PAC and Future Forward have done little to broaden the base of the party. Instead, they’ve consolidated decision-making power among a small group of powerful and well-connected consultants and party apparatchiks. They’ve built a communications network based on campaign operations, but not one designed to lead the public.

Democrats should consider starting from scratch on campaign finance. Every effort since Watergate has failed to rein in spending and has empowered outside groups instead. Congress should repeal McCain-Feingold and give parties and candidate campaigns the power to compete with the special interests for money. Remove contribution limits altogether but add increased transparency so voters know more about who is funding campaigns than they do now.

Parties should also take control of campaign trainings again. Instead of recruiting activists to work on campaigns, they should develop an army of political professionals whose goal is winning elections, not advancing an agenda. Too many operatives have lost sight of the objective of political campaigns.

Most importantly, though, Democrats need to recognize that the party’s brand is damaged with much of the electorate because it has been defined by activists whose views fall outside of the mainstream. They are losing working class Black and Hispanic voters because they fear the Democratic social agenda more than they do the racism of the GOP. Culture wars and purity tests have drowned out the economic messages that win elections. Fixing the problem won’t be easy, but it needs to start now.