Jonathan P. Baird

I expect people will be interpreting the blue tsunami election of November 3 for a long time. When a political party wins big, everyone who had a hand in it claims credit. There is an old aphorism: “Victory has a thousand fathers but defeat is an orphan”.

In this instance, the Democrats benefited from the rage of the American people. The election reflected tremendous anger at the status quo. The combination of the out-of-control cost of living and the unwanted war in Iran fueled voter turnout. People were pissed.

Young voters flipped heavily Democratic as did Latinos who were particularly angry at ICE. African American voters who were upset about the destruction of the Voting Rights Act and the gerrymandering by Republicans turned out en masse. Red states like Kansas, Mississippi and South Carolina that were previously considered impossible to win turned blue. Americans were not politely asking for change. They were demanding it. MAGA thought they could use their coterie of tech billionaires to buy the election but they underestimated the public. Money doesn’t decide everything.

The American people have been utterly sickened by the boundless corruption embodied in the Trump regime. It is like Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has said:

“There are so many criminals in this administration, it’s hard to figure out who should be, you know, the order of operations. There are going to be many, many, many investigations…”

This unprecedented situation raises the question of which Democratic leaders are up to the challenge presented? Who is bold and strong enough to provide the forceful and uncompromising leadership the Democrats need now? America needs major structural reforms, not tinkering around the edges.

I would suggest the leaders we need are not Chuck Schumer, the current Senate minority leader or Hakeem Jeffries, the House minority leader. If the Democrats had been doing any self-critical analysis, they would have replaced Schumer and Jeffries after the 2024 loss to Trump. That loss still rankles and never should have happened but no Democratic leaders were held accountable. I think of the football analogy: when a team disastrously loses, the coach gets fired. That didn’t happen.

It would be a mistake to give Schumer and Jeffries much credit for the blue tsunami. They did play some role in recruiting excellent candidates but these candidates won because of their own excellence and the fact that the Republican brand was so toxic. Neither Schumer nor Jeffries seem remotely up to the task of fighting extreme economic inequality. You don’t hear them critiquing the oligarchy, MAGA fascism or calling for the abolition of ICE. Any goals they do have are extremely modest and almost impossible to discern based on anything they have said.

Jeffries opposes Medicare for all and has secret meetings with Jared Kushner. You have to ask: why would he be doing that? There is nothing to negotiate with the Trump regime. Schumer is closely tied to AIPAC and support for Israel. Democrats are overwhelmingly opposed to the far right Israeli government which is almost like a MAGA evil twin. Neither Jeffries nor Schumer are prepared to push back on the billionaire class.

Corporate Democrats like Schumer and Jeffries are beholden to the donor class. They seek billionaire support. With the centrist Democrats it has been that way for a long time, like over 50 years. Now they call themselves Majority Democrats. They used to be the Democratic Leadership Council, then the New Democrats and the Third Way. They coddle oligarchs. They are billionaire-funded and are all about power for its own sake rather than any big change.

Such centrist Democrats are entirely out of touch with the wishes of Democratic base voters. They put up Haley Stevens (now a virtual Republican) against Abdul El-Sayed. Schumer has never endorsed Zohran Mamdani nor did he put any real money into the Florida senatorial campaign of democratic socialist Angie Nixon even though she almost won without party support.

Democrats want the Iran War stopped yesterday. Neither Schumer nor Jeffries appear to have gotten the message. While it is not entirely clear why 11 Democrats failed to show up for the House vote on Pete Hegseth’s impeachment, that was a failure on Jeffries’ part. Those votes could have made for a different result. Jeffries didn’t feel the urgency of the moment and the disgust of Democratic voters. It is this lack of urgency and lack of fight that is part of the problem. That vote was a missed opportunity.

Democrats need leaders who will fight, not conciliate. And this is not entirely ideological. Jon Ossoff, Chris Murphy and Chris Van Hollen all get it and they are not democratic socialists like Bernie and AOC. MAGA fascism cannot be defeated by mealy-mouthed compromisers. Nor can we hope to enact any deep reform with an uncommitted leadership.

I know Sen Chris Van Hollen has announced his candidacy for Senate Majority Leader. Schumer says he has the votes but the leader will not be chosen until January. No one has come forward to oppose Jeffries and he may not face an opponent. Still, these Democrats are relics. The blue tsunami was about generational change. The Democrats seem to have forgotten their unpopularity even with their win in the last election. The party’s overall public favorability has been net-negative.

Without a sea change, Democrats could easily find themselves in the same position as Republicans come 2030 and 2032. The need for an overhaul could not be clearer and it is not just about winning. It is about the fundamental goals of the party.