When Kamala Harris lost the election on November 5, 2024, the Democratic party also lost its leader. The presumptive successors were Congressional leaders Chuck Schumer in the Senate, and Hakeem Jeffries in the House.

Both Schumer and Jeffries immediately endorsed Harris’ policy agenda, the Democratic Party Platform. They said this platform would guide their efforts in dealing with Trump and a Congress now under Republican control.

However, aside from the platform, there were other critical questions that demanded immediate attention.  In particular,

• Why did so many traditional Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents decide to vote for Trump instead of Harris? Or why did they not vote at all?
• How should the Democratic party go about changing its agenda and messaging strategy to regain those who voted for Trump or decided not to vote?
• And, finally, most important, how should Congressional Democrats respond when Trump launched his second term with a fusillade of actions to cut government spending, decimate the federal workforce, and shutter agencies?  Should they resist strongly, vocally, and combatively?  Or, should they be willing to collaborate and compromise when possible?  And, when not, should they stay out of the fray and let Trump’s terrible actions speak for themselves?

The failure of Democrats to address the critical questions raised above—and particularly its haphazard response to Trump’s blitz of provocative actions—has hurt the party and eroded its base of support.

On one side, millions of politically active Democrats—particularly progressives—are angry. They want their Congressional members to “do something!”  On the other hand, the Democratic minorities in Congress have few options other than speaking out or using procedural tactics to delay or complicate action.  Many Democrats believe the best tactic is to bank on the inability of Republicans to pass their proposals. Given their extremely narrow majority in the House, Republicans will definitely face challenges in having enough votes on controversial legislation. Others reject waiting on Republicans to flounder; instead, they want strong and fierce resistance.

This mishmash of strategies and the lack of a coherent game plan has been painful to watch. At Trump’s joint address to Congress on March 4, Democrats flailed in their efforts to protest. The strategy was far from coherent or powerful. Some decided to skip the speech, some waived signs with various messages, some wore pink, and some heckled. One member was ejected for standing and shouting. And in the aftermath 10 Democrats, along with Republicans, voted to censure him.

Just a week later, indecision by Democrats exploded in their faces. On Saturday, March 8, Speaker Mike Johnson unveiled a House proposal—a Continuing Resolution (CR)—to fund the federal government at current levels until September 30 (the end of the fiscal year).  Unlike Continuing Resolutions in prior years, Democrats were not consulted or allowed input on the proposal.  Also, time was short, as the deadline for funding the government was less than a week away (midnight, Friday March 14). 

Democrats immediately demanded involvement, calling for the CR to be rejected and a shorter (30-day) and bipartisan CR to be adopted in its place. Speaker Johnson declined, and Republicans instead passed their CR by a 217-213 vote on Tuesday March 11. Then Johnson adjourned the House, putting the Senate in a “take it or leave it” position on the CR with only three days left. 

Under Senate rules, while Republicans control the Senate 54-46, Democrats had the power to kill the CR with a filibuster.  Because 60 votes are needed to stop a filibuster (Cloture), some Democrat votes were needed to keep the CR alive. Most Senate Democrats did not want this option.  Rather, they favored a 30-day, bipartisan CR. But they knew Republicans would reject this option, meaning there would be a government shutdown. 

The Democrats faced a no-win situation. On one hand, they could provide enough votes to allow the Republicans’ CR to pass, avoid a shutdown, and avoid being blamed for causing a shutdown.  However, the CR did not contain controls that would limit Trump from further decimating the federal workforce, closing down agencies, and slashing spending. On the other hand, if they did not vote on the CR, there would be a government shutdown. Each side would the other.  Worse, with no funding, leader Schumer and others worried that this would empower Trump to make even greater cuts to government. 

Here’s how Schumer described the havoc from a shutdown:

“A shutdown will allow DOGE to shift into overdrive. Donald Trump and Elon Musk would be free to destroy vital government services at a much faster rate.”

Recent polling confirms the Democratic party now has its lowest ratings since the 1990’s; and its members want party leaders to fight harder against Trump, even if it means things not getting done.

In a recent national NBC News poll, only 27% of registered voters said they have positive views of the Democratic party. The breakdown is as follows: Very positive, 7%; Somewhat positive, 20%; Neutral, 18%; Somewhat negative, 17%; and Very negative, 38%. In terms of Democratic voters, these are the worst ratings by Democrats of their party in more than three decades (since the 1990’s).

Also, the sentiment of Democrat voters is that their Congressional representatives should be fighting, rather than compromising. In the poll, 65% of Democratic voters want their Congressional representatives to stick to their positions, even if it means things not getting done. Only 32% want to see their representatives compromise or reach consensus with Trump and Republicans.  These sentiments are largely the exact opposite of Democrats views early in Trump’s first term. In May of 2017, 59% of Democrats wanted their Congressional representatives to make compromises with Trump and gain consensus. Only 33% wanted their representatives to stick to their positions, even if it meant not being able to get things done in Washington.

To reverse this failure in leadership, Congressional Democrats and party leaders must come together and agree on strategies to: 1) aggressively resist and challenge Trump, 2) articulate what the Democratic party has long stood for and how it differs from the stances of Republicans, and 3) be proactive rather than reactive in engaging the debate.

While Democrats lack a chosen leader who can forge consensus on party positions, talking points, and messaging, they can’t wait to do these things. Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, Congressional Democrats and party leaders need to come together and speak with one voice. Trump, the Republicans in Congress, and the conservative media are constant and consistent in their messaging.  Democrats need to do the same. 

The first prong of the party reboot is to do more fighting and resisting. On a daily basis, Trump is attacks and dismantles programs that are both supported and depended upon by Americans. Many of these are programs that serve the poor and middle class. The mass firings and layoffs, and especially the chaotic processes, also concern Americans. The situation is urgent. Trump is acting unilaterally, with no intent to collaborate or compromise.  Instead, he demeans and blames Democrats, and insists their terrible actions and policies must be terminated.

Under such conditions, the Democrats need to hit back by calling out the damage Trump is doing. They also need to call out actions that violate the Constitution and usurp the roles of Congress and the Judiciary. It’s not business as usual with leaders reading prepared comments from a podium.  Instead, Democratic leaders should call press conferences, hold rallies, and stage peaceful demonstrations to get the message out. Trump is doing this every day with his actions, meetings, and press conferences from the oval office.  Democratic leaders need to do the same. And each of their members of Congress should be reinforcing the talking points.

The second prong of the reboot is to articulate what the Democratic party has long stood for, and then contrast it with the flawed platform of Republicans. The first crucial point here is that’s it’s not acceptable to campaign on certain aspects of the platform.  Instead, the campaign must embrace the issues and constituencies the party has traditionally stood for.  Second, Democrats need to contrast their platform with that of Republicans and explain why the Democratic platform is superior. 

To illustrate, many believe that Democrats lost the election because they abandoned their working class, blue collar base in favor of speaking to college-educated and more well off party members.  There was too much emphasis on dictatorship and saving democracy, and not enough focus on helping Americans struggling with the cost of groceries, gas, and everything else.

Part of the fix involves campaigning on the traditional and longstanding aspects of the platform, and reinforcing commitments to the constituencies served. But this is not enough because Republicans have poached parts of the platform and pushed hard to attract working class Americans. Thus, Democrats need to communicate why the Republican platform is a ruse, and that its real objective is to serve the very wealthy who seek to control the country.

The final prong of the reboot involves Democrats being more proactive, rather than reactive. Admittedly, this has been next-to-impossible given Trump’s barrage of actions that never seem to subside. But the recent “Fighting Oligarchy” rallies held by Senator Bernie Sanders and House member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are a good example of being proactive.

Importantly, there is a major opportunity for Democrats to seize the initiative in connection with Trump’s tax cut package. This proposal will be financed in large part through huge cuts to programs that serve the poor, the disadvantaged, and the working class. Tariffs, which will also disproportionately affect middle class and poor Americans, also will play a role in financing the tax cuts. 

Here’s an example of how Democrats could be more proactive. Rather than waiting for Republicans to come up with the details of their tax package, Democrats could immediately propose extending tax cuts to all Americans but the wealthiest 2%. They could argue that extending the tax cuts for the very wealthy is too expensive, and that it is also unnecessary. To provide tax cuts for the rich, Republicans will be required to make major cuts to programs that serve the poor and disadvantaged. They are also imposing tariffs that will disproportionately affect the middle class and poor. Finally, providing tax cuts for the rich will drive up budget deficits and the national debt.  Democrats can seize the high ground by proposing that all but the wealthiest Americans should get a tax cut.

If Democrats continue to be reactive, failure is almost certain.  For instance, if they wait until Republicans release the details of their tax package and then come out against the entire package, Democrats will be painted as supporting a tax increase for all Americans. This is so because taxes for Americans will go up unless the 2017 tax cuts are extended.

To illustrate what a rebooted Democratic party platform would look like—embracing traditional stances and constituencies, and exposing the Republican ruse—here’s a working draft:

• BUILD AN ECONOMY THAT WORKS FOR ALL AMERICANS, AND NOT JUST THE WEALTHIEST 2%.
  • Renew tax cuts for 98% of Americans, but let tax cuts for the wealthy expire
  • Maintain programs for the poor, elderly, disabled, and disadvantaged, but eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse
  • Lower costs for health care and prescription drugs, child care, gas, energy, groceries, housing, and education
• PRESERVE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY—A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF LIMITED AUTHORITY WITH CHECKS AND BALANCES TO GUARD AGAINST AUTHORITARIAN CONTROL.
  • Ensure the executive branch (President) does not usurp powers and duties of the legislative and judicial branches
  • Challenge unconstitutional actions when any branch of government exceeds its authority
• PRESERVE PRECIOUS FREEDOMS OF AMERICANS INSTEAD OF ALLOWING THESE FREEDOMS TO BE TAKEN AWAY OR DIMINSHED FOR POLITICAL REASONS.
  • No American will be discriminated against on the basis of race, gender, sexual preference, age, or disability
  • Protect reproductive freedom throughout the county by adopting basic freedoms
  • Protect free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion instead of censoring or limiting these freedoms because they don’t conform to the norms of a political party
• TACKLE THE CLIMATE CRISIS BY TRANSITIONING TO CLEANER AND MORE AFFORDABLE ENERGY INSTEAD OF RELYING PRIMARILY ON THE EXPANDED USE OF FOSSIL FUELS.
  • Retain use of fossil fuels as part of portfolio of energy sources, including solar, hydroelectric, wind, batteries, nuclear, hydrogen, and other sources
  • Build climate resiliant communities
  • Expand conservation efforts
• PROTECT OUR COMMUNITIES THROUGH POLICING AND PUBLIC SAFETY, CRIMINAL JUSTICE, AND GUN SAFETY.
• SECURE THE BORDER, DETER ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, EXPAND LEGAL IMMIGRATION, AND FIX THE BROKEN IMMIGRATION SYSTEM.
• COMMIT TO UNIFY AMERICA AND AMERICANS.
  • Commit to work with Republicans to reestablish communication and trust, find middle ground, and adopt policies that serve the vast majority of Americans and the best interests of the country
  • Commit to find and use the facts and the truth instead of either side using lies, baseless conclusions, and hyper-partisan rhetoric to blame and divide

In conclusion, Republicans have been feeding and feasting on the narrative that Democrats are in disarray; Democrats must take advantage of a clear opportunity to unite by fighting harder, rebooting their platform, and proactively pressing their agenda.

This is no time for Democrats to be fighting one another. This is no time to be in disarray, or to be responding reactively. Democrats have a major opportunity to shed these problems in responding to the Republicans’ efforts to enact tax cuts. Because these cuts will predominantly benefit the wealthy at the expense of middle class and poor Americans, Democrats can expose the Republican ruse and reconnect with their traditional constituencies.  Time is of the essence, however. And if takes a leadership change then make it quickly.   Not acting is unacceptable, and the clock is ticking.