Live, Laugh, Lose the Working Class Vote

Somewhere along the way, the Democratic Party traded conviction for caution. It stopped talking to the people who depended on it most — workers, renters, immigrants and young people — and started looking towards the wealthy and mythical “middle” that never seems to materialize on Election Day. 

In July, 63% of registered voters said that the Democratic Party’s out of touch with the everyday concerns of Americans. This marks the worst performance for Democrats in 30 years with only one-third of voters expressing a positive sentiment toward the party.

They’ve lost not because Americans are less progressive — although it may seem like it — but because the party itself appears to have branched out so far from its roots, it no longer knows who or what it represents. They just know they want to oppose the other side.

As recently as their 2024 platform that set the stage of presidential candidate Kamala Harris’ principal goals in the election, Democrats attempted to brand themselves as defenders of the working class — the party of social programs, unions and equal rights. 

In President Donald Trump’s second term, such identity is crumbling under the weight of super Political Action Committees (PACs), delusional bipartisanship ideals, a fear of standing for anything too boldly and concepts of an idea — beginning and ending with countering Trump.

The Democratic Party continues to fail, not because voters have changed — or at least not entirely — but because the party has. It prioritizes moderation, optics, bipartisanship and donors over the people.

The numbers only echo what’s happening internally — a party so fractured and cautious it can’t decide what it stands for, let alone who should lead it.

A recent Politico poll revealed Democrats have no clear leader to the general public. This lack of a leader isn’t about a lack of charm amongst potential leaders, it’s about a lack of conviction. 

The party’s become entranced with appearing reasonable to moderates and conservatives and selling the myth of bipartisanship, which has lost any moral backbone it could’ve had. 

Rather than uniting around bold, people-centered policy, Democrats spend their energy managing optics. It’s not leadership, it’s public relations. The absence of any true, passionate leadership becomes glaring in principle-testing moments. 

Nowhere was this clearer than in the party’s refusal to endorse progressive New York City’s mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, whose campaign centered around challenging billionaire influence, tackling Islamophobia and making one of the most expensive cities in America cheaper for all. 

Arguably, Mamdani has stood by more of the values highlighted in the Democrats’ 2024 platform than any other candidate — making the wealthy pay their fair share, lowering costs on groceries, stabilizing housing costs and protecting marginalized New Yorkers. 

Differently, billionaires poured millions into super PACs to support mayoral candidate Andrew Cuomo and block Mamdani’s attempts for mayorship, leading Democrats like Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer to offer little to no support for Mamdani’s campaign.

The New York Times Editorial Board, who didn’t initially support Mamdani’s campaign, encouraged him to turn toward moderation and compromise rather than building his team on democratic-socialist values.

“He should start by building a leadership team light on democratic socialists and heavy on officials with records of accomplishment and proven management skills.” the board wrote. “Mr. Mamdani can improve life in New York by marrying his admirable ambition to pragmatism and compromise.” 

The average Democrat’s obsession with compromise and bipartisanship has become their biggest weakness. 

As The Nation put it, Democratic accommodationism has carried steep political costs. The party’s leaders keep pushing a message of cheerful cooperation, despite working in a political arena defined by inequality and class resentment.

At the start of Trump’s presidency, most of his cabinet nominations sailed through committees, and bipartisan support helped pass the Laken Riley Act — a federal law stripping undocumented immigrants of due process and enabling their prolonged detention. These measures didn’t succeed in spite of Democrats — they succeeded because of them. 

Seven Democrats and one independent who caucuses with Democrats voted to reopen the government, but only after agreeing to roll back key healthcare subsidies under former President Barack Obama. Before this rollback, polls showed most people blamed Trump and the Republican party for the shutdown — something which could’ve resulted in an approval rating gain for the Democrats if they stuck to their guns and to the people. In the apparent name of being “the lesser of the two evils,” they undercut subsidies that were essential for 24 million individuals.

The Democratic Party’s full embrace of passive, bipartisan legislature may be the greatest driving force behind lack of success. Voters don’t turn out in droves due to disliking one candidate, and if Democrats refuse to alter their approach, blue voters must replace them with progressives who will.

This isn’t leadership — it’s surrender dressed as civility. Every single time Democrats reach across the aisle, they seem to lose another finger. 

There’s a saying we all seem to understand in America — follow the money. 

If you follow the money behind modern Democrats, you’ll find yourself at the feet of super PACs and corporate donors rather than grassroots movements.

Fifteen years after Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission, a case where the Court held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts can’t be limited under the First Amendment, the Brennan Center reported super PACs now dominate Democratic campaign spending almost as much as Republicans.

Just this year, billionaires such as Michael Bloomberg funneled millions into anti-Mamdani PACs — because heaven forbid a progressive threaten the economic status quo. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once called Citizens United the worst ruling of her time, and 22 states voted to support a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United. 

In Chicago, Ill., Governor J.B. Pritzker — himself a millionaire — continues to resist progressive tax reforms proposed by Mayor Brandon Johnson, which would target wealthy corporations. 

The Democratic Party’s problem isn’t cosmetic — it’s ethical. A party that allows Islamophobia to circulate unchecked, shields the wealthy from meaningful taxation and sacrifices public safety nets for political convenience isn’t merely misguided — it’s abandoning the principles it claims to defend.

Democrats have joined Republicans in weaponizing Islamophobia when convenient, particularly against progressives such as Mamdani and other Muslim public figures. At moments like these, it becomes clear that both major parties are willing to compromise the ideal of an inclusive democracy when doing so offers political advantage.

Democrats love to brand themselves as “for the people,” but “the people” seem to have been replaced by a handful of donors, consultants and think-tank advisors. The working class who once fueled the party’s moral core has been sidelined by strategists who treat radical empathy as a liability. 

Even young voters — once considered Democrats’ strongest base — are losing faith. They may see the party talk about taxing billionaires, then take their largest donations from them. Similarly, they may see Democrats tweet about protecting healthcare, then hesitate to codify Obamacare. 

I don’t offer these critiques from a point of cynicism or from outside the progressive tradition. I offer them because I still believe in what the left is supposed to stand for — and because I’ve watched Democrats abandon those commitments at the exact moments they’re needed most. 

I grew up in rural Missouri, in a place where Democrats stopped showing up a long time ago, where the word “progressive” was something you had to explain before you had to defend it. . 

I’m not disillusioned with progressivism. I’m disillusioned with a party that’s forgotten how to fight for it. 

Moderation isn’t moral — it’s dangerous. Democrats don’t need to reinvent themselves to win, they need to remember who they were built for. 

If they can’t, the people — ones who still believe politics are supposed to be an act of service rather than a performance — will find leaders who will