Public opinion is mutable
Democrats are squandering opportunities to change it
The behavior of Democrats in Washington in response to the Trump administration’s actions continues to befuddle. Clearly some of them recognize the gravity of a presidential administration that defies laws and the Constitution, terminates government spending that has already been appropriated and employees who have worked responsibly, builds concentration camps for migrants, and tosses democratic allies overboard in favor of their authoritarian invaders. But also clearly many do not. This resulted in a disjointed set of responses to Trump’s address to the joint session of Congress this week, in which some Democrats boycotted, one stood to object and was forcibly removed, many wore pink and held up small auction paddles, and some just sat and looked grumpy, while Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) gave a formal speech praising Ronald Reagan. It was hard to believe that this was the same party that, just eight months ago, pushed a president off the ticket and coordinated behind Kamala Harris in a matter of hours to increase their chances of winning an election.
As I noted here, my read on this is that Democrats are largely following public opinion, or what they believe public opinion will be as the 2026 elections approach. They got stung by last fall’s election results and definitely don’t want to repeat that by appearing out of touch on economic issues, so they’re talking about egg prices all the time. And they’re always worried about looking too extreme for the midterm elections, so they’re trying to signal that they can work with the administration on some matters. And more importantly, as Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries clearly understands, members represent very different districts, and he wants to keep them free to respond as they deem necessary to secure their own reelections. This is not a crazy idea.
However, this ignores the things that Democrats could be doing now. Further, it treats public opinion as something fixed that simply exists in nature. It ignores things Democrats could be doing to mold public opinion. To be sure, Democrats are in the minority in DC, and their options aren’t enormous. But the nature, tone, and unity of their opposition matters.
Let me offer a few recent examples of shifts in public opinion:
This piece from Michael Tesler, John Sides, and Colette Marcellin shows rather swift changes in recent years in the way Republicans conceive of gender roles. Just in the last few years, Republican men and women are suddenly swinging in favor of wanting women to “return to their traditional roles.”
Gallup data show that, while acceptance of same-sex marriage is basically still at an all-time high, Republicans have shifted away from it in recent years.
The point here is that partisan shifts like this don’t just happen. Most people don’t follow politics very closely, but they do respond to signals from elites about how to think about issues. The polling shifts are the results of Republicans operating in a very different media environment from Democrats, being exposed to news, social media, TV shows, politicians’ speeches, and other things that have begun portraying same-sex couples and working women in a more negative light than they used to, while embracing the mythical tradwife.
Now, this doesn’t just mean that Democrats can just scream “Constitutional crisis!” on TV and people will believe it. But their actions do have effects. Currently, the choice by many Democrats to not treat this moment as a crisis is hugely important. It means that potentially sympathetic voters are not receiving that signal.
Similarly, when the Republican president attacks trans people as monsters or the victims of child abuse, and many prominent Democrats either duck it to avoid being associated with an unpopular issue, or, as Gavin Newsom did, repeat Republican talking points, that’s the signal partisans hear. What could be a partisan split to defend an unpopular minority becomes instead an environment to roll back their acceptance and make their lives harder.
As historian Nicole Hemmer rightly described it, “A constitutional crisis requires friction to make it legible.” People don’t automatically understand when a crisis is occurring. Most people don’t really have a sense that Donald Trump is trying to stop the spending of federal funds that are already appropriated, to outsource key decisions to an unelected billionaire, to compel state and local governments to act in certain ways, to get schools and companies to abolish DEI efforts, etc. and does not have the authority to do those things. They don’t know that this creates a constitutional crisis, one that undermines democracy and the rule of law in the long run. These issues are complicated, but a clear signal from partisan leaders they basically trust can do a lot to affect how they think about it.
Their actions can also affect media coverage. One member of the House speaking out during Trump’s speech and getting ejected while the rest of his fellow Democrats just sit and stare looks cranky and odd. If his ejection had led a second member to stand up and loudly object to that, and then that person’s ejection lead to a third member standing up, etc., that becomes an important story. It disrupts the President’s speech. Newscasters will want to interview the people involved, giving Democrats the chance to explain what’s going on and rally their side. As it was, they looked disorganized and feckless. And ten Democrats actually joined their Republican colleagues in censuring Al Green. As Ana Marie Cox summed up, “Such feeble pushback is a complete abdication of the Democrats’ duties as servants of the people and defenders of the Constitution.”
Now, some stuff will get the public’s attention regardless of what members of Congress signal. People notice a recession. They notice plane crashes. If their Social Security checks are actually going to be late, they’ll sure as Hell notice that. And some of these very blatant actions are part of the reason Trump’s approval rating has declined so rapidly.
But Democrats are going to have a hard time saving the republic if they’re spending their time convincing people it doesn’t need saving.
Dems need to stop bringing a wooden spoon to a knife fight. Obama, as much as I respect him, should have forced the constitutional issue back when McConnell refused to seat Garland. He could have sworn in a justice and effectively said, 'balls in your court Mitch.'
I've come to the conclusion that the party as an institution is just too weak (having been weakened for years by various processes) to coordinate without a president as leader. There are more incentives to act individually than to act in concert.