A Guide for the Perplexed: Democrats in Distress

Discipline and amplification are key

The party out of power in the White House inevitably faces a problem in presenting to voters a unified strategy and message. Under the Trump regime, the problem is particularly acute, given the president’s predilection for flooding the zone with outrageous, extreme, and unconstitutional edicts. That technique sends Democratic constituencies scrambling in different directions, with the end result being that no one’s message gets through. “Breaking through” to activists and the general public becomes nearly impossible when the Trump opposition is trapped playing a never-ending tournament of “whack-a-mole.”

Moreover, Democratic governors face a unique challenge: They must hold the line against threats from the president that adversely impact their residents, and they are obliged to defend the rule of law while doing so. As a practical matter, however, they’re now facing an onslaught of desperate situations that require federal help. Governors who understand Trump’s ego—at least to the extent that anybody can grasp a motivation of such magnitude—are better equipped to manipulate him. Doing so requires the need to walk a fine line between, on one hand, speaking out as part of the pro-democracy alliance and, on the other, fulfilling their obligation to residents to get the federal government’s help to provide basic services.

With input from some of the smartest Democratic communicators, I offer five suggestions for navigating this perilous line.

1. Communications 101. Every ranking member on every House and Senate committee must have a communications team with a 24/7 presence on all social media outlets, especially BlueSky, which has become the platform of choice for many pro-democracy voices. Remarkably, many Democrats—including ranking members on key committees— still do not. When a stunning event occurs, such as the illegal attempt to fire inspectors general without a substantial reason and 30 days’ notice, or Trump’s illegal usurpation of Congress’s power of the purse to cut off federal funding, Democratic leaders should forcefully and swiftly push back. They need to explain what Trump has attempted to do (simply because he sends out an illegal order does not mean he has accomplished his aim); why Trump’s action is dangerous, and why it matters in the bigger scheme of things. Waiting idly to see if the public thinks a Trump maneuver is important before responding loudly is political malpractice. Democratic officeholders must lead. They need to take their oaths to preserve and protect the Constitution seriously, and when necessary, educate and bring the public along so voters understand the stakes.

2. Democratic activists and rank-and-file response. When Trump grotesquely oversteps, Democratic activists, party officials, and any engaged Democrat with a platform need to do what Republicans do: Amplify a critical issue throughout their media ecosystem. This requires prioritization and coordination (Will Rogers’ remark—“I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat”—notwithstanding). Message discipline has never been a Democratic strong suit, but it is an essential technique to win the battle for small “d” democracy. Sending out a written press release is 20^th century stuff. Getting the best communicators to make news on all platforms is necessary to amplify elected Democrats’ objections and responses to Trump’s authoritarian moves. (Given the lawsuits that will follow Trump’s illegal actions, courthouse press conferences should be a mainstay in the communications toolkit.)

3. Governors must pick their moments. Democratic governors should never, ever kiss the ring or bend the knee simply to ingratiate themselves with the MAGA regime. When Colorado Governor Jared Polis spontaneously gave a shout-out to vaccine skeptic and healthcare gadfly RFK., Jr.’s nomination, the Democratic base rightfully erupted. Polis’s praise was unnecessary, unwise, and unhelpful. Especially when other Democrats are mounting an effort to defeat a nominee or initiative, suckuppery of this type actively harms the cause of democracy, truth-telling, and the rule of law.

Meanwhile, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D)—along with any other governor caught in a crisis—is in a near-impossible spot, even aside from any presidential ambitions he might harbor. On the one hand, he needs to prevent Trump from spreading dangerous misinformation, to defend local officials and first responders doing their job, and to reassure Democratic groups that he will not capitulate to Trump's outrageous demands (e.g., changing California’s voting laws to get aid). On the other hand, Newsom would be derelict if he did not ensure his state gets the greatest amount of federal aid possible. The key here is to never repeat Trump’s lies, accede to ridiculous propositions, or allow state and local officials to descend into finger-pointing. A governor who is simply polite and complementary when the federal government responds, however, is doing his job. Neither Newsom nor any other governor is going to strike the balance between defiance and keeping aid flowing perfectly at all times. (Maryland Gov. Wes Moore seems to have figured out how to target his objections to Trump’s worst actions (e.g. freeing Jan. 6 felons) – and even participate in a lawsuit to defend birthright citizenship – without going so far as to imperil the critical Frances Scott Key Bridge rebuilding project.) In that sense, governors are in a fundamentally different position than Democratic activists who have the luxury to denounce Trump without clarification or adverse consequences. Both sides should understand governors’ conflicting obligations.

4. Nominees. Senate Democrats occasionally may find a particular Trump nominee for a top executive branch post who is qualified, sane, and of minimally acceptable character (e.g., not an alcoholic, accused sexual predator, guilty of financial misconduct). These figures will be few and far between. When they come up for a vote, Democrats should not oppose them simply because they are Trump's pick. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is no George C Marshall, but he fits this description. Accordingly, Democrats’ participation in the 99-0 vote to confirm him was appropriate.

However, there is absolutely no reason to vote—as some Senate Democrats chose to do—to confirm someone as abjectly unprepared, erratic, and downright weird as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem. Compliant Democrats aren't going to get points back home with Republican voters for throwing their lot in with unfit Republican nominees, especially if the senator is not up for reelection for nearly six years. (Looking at you, Senator Fetterman.) That doesn’t mean Democratic senators have to launch a full-front effort to defeat every bad nominee, but that does not mean they have to vote FOR them. Democrats in competitive districts can save their venom for the worst of the worst, but voting to confirm someone who plainly would not cut it in a “meritocracy” does not serve the elected Democrats, their constituents, or their country.

Incidentally, Democrats must also agree on the worst of the worst nominees who remain, and then align themselves in a full-court press to defeat them. (Most Democrats put Kash Patel, Tulsi Gabbard, and RFK. Jr. in that category.) Once again, some discipline is necessary to focus energies on those high-priority nominees. Democrats may not win all these fights, but they must make Republican senators who are determined to confirm the worst of the worst nominees (e.g. Iowa Senator Joni Ernst voting to confirm Pete Hegseth) pay a steep political price, especially if they are on the ballot in 2026.

5. Get beyond the bubble. Democrats make two mistakes when it comes to media.

First, endorsing the idea that going on Face the Nation constitutes “communicating with the American people.” Bunk. Audiences for broadcast Sunday Morning News shows are declining and rarely reach beyond people already fully-enmeshed in politics. Democratic politicians would get the same reach talking loudly in a Georgetown restaurant.

Second, neglecting persuadable voters. Democrats must show up on podcasts, YouTube, TikTok, and even Fox News. Democrats must engage with the mass of rational voters who may be uninformed but at least not brainwashed by disinformation. Some of these platforms require expert communication skills, others are a cakewalk. Democrats who venture onto Fox News, for example, should study appearances by Ian Sams, Jamie Raskin, and Pete Buttigieg, to name a few. Standing up to purveyors of disinformation and raising doubt in the minds of Fox viewers can begin to break down the MAGA propaganda silo. If Democrats can reach even a small segment of voters whom they have previously missed, they are making progress.

In fairness to Hill Democrats, Trump’s illegal attempt to snatch the power of the purse from Congress in enacting a temporary “freeze” on spending triggered a unified response of horror. Numerous lawmakers made scathing statements, Democratic governors affected by the potential cut-off in funds came forward, interest groups spoke up on behalf of vulnerable groups experiencing a loss of vital support (e.g., Medicaid recipients), and multiple lawsuits were filed, one attaining a quick stay to countermand the funding freeze.

That should be the model response going forward. Democrats are the only party that can preserve functional government and democratic values. Every time they miss an opportunity to advance the cause, they strengthen authoritarianism and undercut the work of patriotic activists, voters and pro-democracy forces around the globe. Failure to deploy disciplined messaging, amplified throughout the media landscape, means not only losing elections, but losing our democracy.