On this episode of The Depolarizers podcast, I’m in conversation with
about what went wrong for Democrats in 2024, how to address the problems, and who can lead us out of the wilderness.Josh is an independent journalist who writes the publication Very Serious here on Substack. He previously wrote for The New York Times, New York Magazine, and Business Insider.
A few things stood out to me in our conversation.
Trump’s Strategic Moderation
Barro notes that Trump was successful in moving the Republican Party to the center on issues that hurt Romney in 2012 (Social Security and Medicare) and Republican U.S. Senate candidates in 2022 (abortion):
Donald Trump has really, in certain ways, moved the Republican Party toward the center on issues like Social Security, Medicare, gay marriage, compared to where the party was under Mitt Romney, and there have been electoral dividends for that. You saw him in this election trying really hard to run away from unpopular positions on abortion that are an electoral liability, liability for Republicans, but not as large a liability as they would be if Trump had not been explicitly trying to cultivate a moderate image on that issue. And I think Democrats in this campaign did not effectively succeed at adapting their positions to the median voter.
Liam wrote about this on WelcomeStack, noting the ways that voters approve of Trump’s unorthodox transition team. Trump was willing to buck his party on harsh cuts to popular programs and sought to distance himself from Project 2025. The result: voters saw Trump as more moderate than Harris. Harris did nothing to explicitly distance herself from ideological extremists in her party, and she couldn’t say “no” to any of the 300 Musketeers. Worse, she couldn’t even explain her own shifts on issues like immigration, domestic energy, and other key issues.
Strategic Opposition, Not Blanket Resistance
Looking forward, Barro talks about what he’ll be paying attention to in American politics: how Democrats approach a version of Trump with a popular vote mandate:
I'll be following especially the economic policy fights that happen in Washington. You know, there will be a major tax law passed, and even though Republicans are in the majority, they have such a narrow majority in the House of Representatives, I think there is likely to be an important role for Democrats to play in opposing bad ideas, but also in finding certain places to work together when Republicans will decide they actually need Democrats to get things done that they want to do. But I'll also be focusing on how the party can better position itself next time, and not get caught out on cost of living and crime and immigration in particular, as issues where, you know, voters just perceive the Democrats as being out of touch and not focused on their everyday concerns, causing them to choose Republicans.
Unlike in 2016 (and in 2020), Trump did not lose the popular vote in 2024. He won, and he swept the core swing states.
In our conversation, Barro points to immigration and energy as two plausible areas for Democrats to collaborate with Trump. According to polling from Blueprint, those are two areas where Democrats are most out of touch with voters’ views. Democrats have embraced popular policies to increase American energy independence, yet refused to discuss them on the campaign trail.
Breaking With Your Party
When I asked Barro about leaders for the Party’s future, he pointed to Gov. Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania. Barro points out that Shapiro doesn’t always break with his party to the center but instead finds non-ideological ways to signify ideological independence:
One of his initiatives, for example, is making many more government jobs in Pennsylvania available to people regardless of whether or not they have a college degree. I think he's pointed out correctly that we have a certain amount of credentialism in this society, and, you know, we haven't thought deeply about whether this degree requirement is actually necessary for this specific role? I think it's a smart way to do government hiring, but it's also, it's not a left-right issue. It's something you can put out there. And it's not, “oh, I'm in favor of that because I'm conservative or I'm liberal.” It's a way to sort of get around the usual divides and appeal to people on both sides.
Barro also notes that Shapiro is willing to stand up to his own party, even on hot-button issues like covid restrictions:
But also, maybe more importantly, he's shown a willingness to stand up to people in the party coalition when they want to do things that are unpopular. Circa 2022 when he was still Attorney General, and in 2023, you had these efforts to reimpose pandemic era covid restrictions in certain circumstances, for example, in the city of Philadelphia. A lot of Democrats knew that was unpopular at that point and knew the country was ready to move on, but they didn't want to get yelled at on social media. There were some people in our coalition who were very passionate about the idea that we should basically wear masks and hide in our homes forever. And he was able to come out and say that what the city of Philadelphia is doing is wrong, and I oppose it.
Let’s face it: over-performers break with their party. The top Republican over-performers have bucked their party on healthcare (Brian Fitzpatrick voted against ACA repeal), Trumpism (David Valdao voted to impeach), and LGBTQ rights (a number of swing state Republicans voted to protect same-sex marriage). On the Democratic side, the biggest over-performers buck with their party on energy (Mary Peltola supported the Willow pipeline), student debt cancellation (Marie Gluesenkamp Perez opposed student debt cancellation), and government spending (Jared Golden voted against the stimulus package, and campaigned on fighting inflation).
Candidates who toe the party line will struggle to win tough races if they don’t have any issues where they can differentiate themselves from other Democrats and appeal to independent-minded voters.
Society and Trump
Barro and I discussed the way that non-political institutions like media and the science community were politicized during Trump’s first term, to negative effect:
It's the way that so much of the press conceived itself as in opposition to Donald Trump. And they were tempted to do that in part because Donald Trump conceives himself in opposition to the press. The fight was brought to them, and they chose to take it, and for a time, it sold subscriptions at places like The Washington Post. There was also a business reason to do it. But a lot of journalists became very openly advocates over the past 10 years or so, and even though those people very often really do have deep subject matter expertise and know a lot about the subjects they're reporting on, it makes it very difficult for people to trust them when they realize that the values they hold are different from the values that dominate within those newsrooms, which are almost entirely staffed by not just Democrats, but you get into younger generations who are very left wing, and I think that's been a huge problem for press credibility. And it's very difficult to fix because this is your personnel, and it comes from the bottom.
As one example, a study of Nature’s endorsement of Biden found that it did very little to convince voters to support Biden, but did a lot to erode readers’ trust in Nature. Bringing politics into science and media only erodes already declining institutional trust.
Reality vs. Apology
Lastly, Barro pointed out some of the real-life implications of immigration policy that voters, particularly voters of color with various ethnic backgrounds, want Democrats in power to address:
It's appropriate for people to be concerned when they walk out of their house and see prostitution or shoplifting. I live in New York City. There was a huge swing toward Republicans in the outer boroughs, especially Hispanic and Asian neighborhoods in the outer boroughs. There was a very good piece for New York Magazine by Simon van Zuylen-Wood, who went out to Corona, which is a very Hispanic neighborhood in Queens. There's a specific problem with prostitution on Roosevelt Avenue, the main drag through there, and a lot of trafficking that is being done by Venezuelan migrants. And you have a lot of people who themselves are immigrants to the United States, often from Latin America, who are complaining about what's going on with all these new Venezuelan migrants around them. It's not racist to be concerned about that, and it is not unusual to be concerned about that. I think the Democratic Party tried to make a turn toward that at the end of the Biden Administration. I think pushing toward the Lankford bill on border security was a good choice. They should have done it three years earlier. But, for too long, they listened to the so-called groups that just saw lax immigration enforcement as good in itself. Democrats eventually learned that “the groups” have no political juice. There's no real political constituency in the United States for uncontrolled migration into the country. So I think on that issue, Democrats sort of figured out most of where they needed to get on it. They just did it too late.
As Barro hits on throughout our conversation, Democrats have ample opportunity to change course and recalibrate to where voters are on a range of policy and cultural issues.
We’re hopeful the Party can make the appropriate adjustments, and we look forward to joining forces as a coalition to execute on solutions and empower the leaders involved.
Like what you’re hearing? Listen to the full episode on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you find your podcasts, and subscribe to hear new episodes of The Depolarizers. You can also support our work to depolarize American politics via our 501(c)3, The Welcome Democracy Institute.
Share this post