While the massively destructive wildfires burned through Los Angeles, a special session of the California legislature met in Sacramento at the behest of Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA). The top points on the agenda didn’t deal with emergency disaster funding or investigations into governmental failures that allowed the blazes to rage for days.
Instead, the state’s Democratic supermajority voted on reserving millions of dollars to fund lawsuits against the future policies of President-elect Donald Trump. Days later, on Jan. 20, Trump was inaugurated for a second, nonconsecutive term.
While a predictable move by a government in the most richly phthalo of blue states and a termed-out governor targeting Vice President J.D. Vance in the open 2028 presidential race, the seemingly tone-deaf timing of the funding move begged a question originally flagged by Trump’s win two months earlier: As currently fueled and crewed nationally and from state to state, is the Democratic Party better constructed for protest and resistance than governance and leadership?
Political reality put Democrats in their current position, said Christopher Cooper, a professor of political science and public affairs at Western Carolina University.
“Given the realities of the partisan majorities in the United States Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the change in the U.S. presidency, the Democratic Party’s job has to be, almost by definition, to protest rather than to lead,” Cooper said in an interview.
“But (political) parties are multifaceted things,” Cooper added. “There’s the elected officials and party organization at the federal level, then the state-level party organizations and party loyalists who may not hold an official position but do identify as a party member.”
Adding all of those elements together, Cooper suggests that with Trump ensconced back in the White House, leadership possibilities remain for Democrats — and those opportunities must be seized.
“The best thing for the American system is robust two-party competition at all levels of government,” Cooper said. “The problem is, as states have become increasingly ‘red’ or ‘blue,’ party structures for the out-party tend to atrophy, leaving the parties uneven, and leaving the prospects for competitive American politics slim at best.”
Democrats during the second Trump administration embody the concept of “loyal opposition,” said John G. Geer, a professor of political science at Vanderbilt University and co-director of the Vanderbilt Poll.
“With the 2024 elections, the Republicans became the governing party at the federal level,” Geer said in an interview. “That inevitably means the Democrats’ role is now to challenge and push the GOP on all issues in which they disagree. For democracy to function, the ‘out party’ must criticize and question what the GOP does.”
Geer suggests that the public needs to see the Democrats’ alternative approach, even while the party makes its resistance efforts with an eye toward the 2026 and 2028 elections and the chance to recapture branches of Congress and the presidency in four years.
“Given the filibuster in the Senate and the very close margins in the House, the Democrats will have some opportunities to shape policy,” Geer added. “But, in nearly all cases, that will be a secondary role. But if they succeed in holding the Republicans accountable, they can make the case to get back in power.”
Professor Manisha Sinha, Draper Chair in American history at the University of Connecticut, doesn’t see the Democratic Party as permanently in the role of rebel opposition, especially considering the slim margin of the Republican congressional majority.
“Even though (Trump) won the electoral count and popular vote, he failed to get 50% of the overall total,” Sinha said. “So, the country is still clearly divided. History tells us the political mood can swing back easily.”
The professor acknowledged the Democrats ran a flawed campaign in 2024, attempting to form a coalition of their progressive base and a pool of less liberal Trump opponents. If they wish to return to a broad base of power, she urges DNC chiefs to consider reconnecting with middle-class voters, rather than running on activist issues or the salvation of democracy.
The Democratic Party “did a terrible job of selling their successes” in 2024, she explained, citing former President Joe Biden. “The last time the nation saw job loss was before Biden took office in December of 2020. I would argue the infrastructure bill benefited red states the most. Those are examples of Democrats leading, and that messaging didn’t get out to voters.”
Finally, Sinha warns Republicans not to get too comfortable. She sees them taking their victory lap with Trump’s second attempt at his first 100 days looming. Still, she wonders how long it’ll be before the Republican honeymoon ends.
“As a historian, I know the past teaches us it’s easier to run a campaign than it is to run a country,” she said.
Vanderbilt’s Geer has a similar view of the national political landscape over the coming years.
“The truth of the matter is that neither party holds power for a long time,” he said. “The public often seeks change.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
He outlines a pattern in the course of American history in which it’s typical for one party to hold the presidency for about eight years, turning the reins over to the opposition within two election cycles.
“Just think about this century,” he added. “We have already had five party switches in the Oval Office. Given the public’s general unhappiness with the state of the country, one should not expect the GOP to hold the reins of power very long. Within two years, the Democrats are quite likely to win back the House of Representatives. Time will tell, but party change is fundamental to America and to nearly all democratic regimes.”
John Scott Lewinski, MFA, is a writer based in Milwaukee.
