Most readers here (and I) are keen on getting a Democrat elected as President in 2028, and it would be nice as well if the Democrats took over both houses of Congress this fall. And, indeed, with Trump’s ratings in the dumpster, that may well happen. But Ruy Texiera is worried that that is not enough: he thinks the Democrats feel that they don’t have to do more than sit back and let Trump self-destruct. His thesis in this Substack article (the last one in the five years the site has been going), is that the Democrats are jaded and have failed to learn the lessons of the last few years—lessons about what the public wants. This obtuseness, he says, will eventually come back to haunt them, and may even affect Democratic chances for victory in the next few years.
I recommend that you read this article: the message may sound old, but Teixeira expresses it in detail and writes extremely clearly. The sub-message for Democrats is this: “Don’t let the ‘progressives’ take over the party!”
If you don’t know Teixeira. here’s from his Wikipedia bio (he seems to be pretty much of a centrist):
Ruy Teixeira born December 15, 1951) is an American political scientist and commentator. He is a senior fellow at the centre-right think tank American Enterprise Institute and co-founder and politics editor of the Substack newsletter The Liberal Patriot, along with John Halpin.
He is known for his work on political demography, particularly for the book The Emerging Democratic Majority (2002), which he co-wrote with John Judis. In it, they argue that the US Democratic Party is demographically destined to become a majority party in the early 21st century, a thesis that he later disavowed, citing the rise of the progressive movement in the United States.
. . . Since 2020, Teixeira has written critically about a leftward shift within the Democratic Party. He has argued that the progressive movement in the United States is over and finished after the 2024 United States elections, positing that Democrats still do not realise it as of 2025.
Click the screenshot to read for free (it’s the lack of money that has apparently killed the site, but it’s too late to subscribe):
Last year he wrote a related piece about Democratic obtuseness, “Is our Democrats learning?“, which gets its ungrammatical title from a G. W. Bush query, “Is our children learning?”.
On to the present piece; my comments are flush left; Teixeira’s quotes are indented.
The problem
Posing this question again in early spring 2026, it is my sad duty to inform you that our Democrats continue not to learn. If anything, they are increasingly adamant that such learning is not even necessary. Their mantra now might be, paraphrasing that old joke about the British: “No learning please, we’re Democrats.”
The proximate reasons for this complacency are not hard to discern. Trump and many of his administration’s actions are very unpopular and voters’ views on the economy, their most important issue, are dire. Consistent with these sentiments, Democrats did well in the 2025 elections, continue to clean up in special elections, and appear poised to have a very good election this coming November.
These favorable political winds have made it a great deal easier for Democrats to ignore the need for change. Surely the American people have now woken up, are rejecting Trump and Trumpism once and for all and will never be seduced by right populism again.
. . . Currently, the desire for change seems to be hovering around zero, as more and more Democrats have convinced themselves that their problems have essentially been solved. Here at The Liberal Patriot, we know all about that. Funding for our modest enterprise, always precarious, has now completely dried up. Our view that the party has neither solved its problems nor is even very close to doing so has tanked our appeal among partisan Democratic donors, even reform-oriented ones, who now tend to regard us with suspicion. A little heterodoxy is fine but there’s a limit! Hence: no money.
Teixiera then singles out five areas in which, he argues—convincingly—that Democrats haven’t learned. Immigration and trans rights are the most thorough areas he analyzes (though economics will be more decisive), but of course I can’t quote the whole piece. A bit of each:
The culture problem. This is a big one. The yawning gap between the cultural views of the Democratic Party, dominated by liberal professionals, and those of the median working class voter is screamingly obvious. One approach to this problem would be to actually change some of the Democratic Party positions that are so alienating to those voters.
Nah! That would be way too simple plus would create fights within our coalition plus…we’re on the right side of history aren’t we so why the hell would we change our correct, righteous positions? Democrats have instead chosen a different path, aptly summed up by Lauren Egan:
It didn’t take long after the 2024 election—in which their party lost the White House and the Senate—for Democratic leaders to identify the problem: The party had drifted too far to the left on social and cultural issues.
It also didn’t take them long to come up with a solution: simply to shut up about it…
The working-class and rural voter problem. This brings us to the Democrats’ working-class and rural voter problem, also screamingly obvious from long-term trends and the results of the 2024 election. Of course, Democrats take comfort from the copious evidence that many of these voters are now having second thoughts about their support for Trump and the GOP. This can be seen both in low Trump approval and future Republican voting intentions relative to those voters’ 2024 levels of Trump support.
But there is little evidence that declining enthusiasm for Trump has been matched by increased enthusiasm for the Democrats among these voters. Indeed, a careful recent study by Jared Abbott and Joan C. Williams for the invaluable Center for Working-Class Politics finds that “waverers”—those Trump supporters who now say they are not planning to vote Republican in 2028—are overwhelmingly not supporting the Democrats but rather supporting neither party or generally disengaging from politics.
The trans “rights” problem. Every once in a while, some Democratic politician ventures a mild dissent from the trans activist agenda. Without exception, they are met with a brick wall of intense intra-party opposition which typically results in a hasty retreat by said politician. It is truly a litmus test issue.
This is remarkable. Perhaps nothing would surprise a Democratic time traveler from the 20th century as much as the incorporation of transgender “rights” into the Democrats’ 21st century project. Going far beyond basic civil rights in housing, employment, and marriage, Democrats have uncritically embraced the ideological agenda of trans activists who believe gender identity trumps biological sex, and that therefore, for example, transwomen—trans-identified males—are literally women and must be able to access all women’s spaces and opportunities: sports, changing rooms, bathrooms, jails, crisis centers, institutions, etc. . . .
. . . . In reality, sex is a binary; males cannot become females and females cannot become males. Transwomen are not women. They are males who choose to identify as women and may dress, act, and be medically treated so they resemble their biological sex less. But that does not make them women. It makes them males who choose a different lifestyle.
As noted, the remarkably radical approach of trans activists and gender ideologues has been met with little resistance in the Democratic Party. But as evidence mounts that the medicalization of children is not a benign and life-saving approach, but rather a life-changing treatment with many negative effects, and voters stubbornly refuse to endorse the idea that biological sex is just a technicality and more and more strongly oppose the trans activist agenda, Democrats’ identification with gender ideology has become a massive political liability.
Indeed, for many, many voters the Democrats’ embrace of radical transgender ideology and its associated policy agenda has become the most potent exemplar of Democrats’ lack of connection to the real world of ordinary Americans. For these voters, Democrats have definitely strayed into “who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes” territory. And if they’re not realistic about something as fundamental as human biology, why should they be trusted about anything else?
Of course trans people deserve those “basic civil rights,” but the clash among the Left is about the “ideological agenda of trans activists.” I am not aware of any Democratic politican being asked outright by the press, “Do you think that trans women are actually women, and should, for example, be able to compete in women’s sports or be confined in women’s jails?” The press is not doing its job here; after all, part of its duty is to make Americans aware of where their politicians stand. But the mainstream media, being pretty “progressive” itself, is loath to even pose these questions.
Here’s another example of where the press has failed to do its job:
The immigration problem. The immigration issue has been a total disaster for the Democrats. They encouraged mass immigration through lax border and interior enforcement and porous asylum systems that effectively legalized illegal immigration and made a mockery of controlled, legal immigration. Over time, the intense unpopularity of these policies has contributed hugely to tanking Democrats’ working-class support. But to this day where are the Democratic politicians who are willing to unapologetically proclaim the following fundamentals of a realistic immigration policy?
There follows a list of ten reasonable propositions about immigration that no Democrat will touch. Teixeira rightly sees the Democrats as effectly espousing an “open border” policy, with the possible exception of immigrants who have committed crimes in their home country or have done so after illegal entry into America.
But so far what has happened? Clearly Democrats are much happier denouncing ICE (including calling for its abolition) and Trump than they are grappling with the immigration issue and making clear, unambiguous commitments to radical reform. Noah Smith rightly sums up the situation:
I have seen zero evidence that progressives have reckoned with their immigration failures of 2021-23. I have not seen any progressive or prominent Democrat articulate a firm set of principles on the issue of who should be allowed into the country and who should be kicked out.
This was not always the case. Bill Clinton had no problem differentiating between legal and illegal immigration in 1995, and declaring that America had a right to kick out people who come illegally.
I have seen no equivalent expression of principle [JAC: remember, he’s talking about the Democrats] during the second Trump presidency. Every Democrat and progressive thinker can articulate a principled opposition to the brutality and excesses of ICE and to the racism that animates Trump’s immigration policy. But when it comes to the question of whether illegal immigration itself should be punished with deportation, Democrats and progressives alike lapse into an uncomfortable silence.
Every Democratic policy proposal I’ve seen calls to refocus immigration enforcement on those who commit crimes other than crossing the border illegally. But what about those who commit no such crime? If someone who crosses illegally and then lives peacefully and otherwise lawfully in America should be protected from deportation, how is the right-wing charge of “open borders” a false one?
Why can’t a reporter ask Elizabeth Warren or AOC this question: “Do you favor unrestricted immigration into America, and, if not, who would you exempt?”
And a big problem that’s only going to get worse:
The economic program (or lack thereof) problem. Democrats seem to think that the well-documented discontent with the Trump administration’s economic management now makes the economy “their” issue. In a thermostatic, opposition party sense that may be true, but it remains the case that Democrats do not have an advantage over Republicans on handling the economy.
This makes sense since voters viewed the previous Democratic administration quite negatively on economic management. They may not like what Trump has done, but they have not forgotten what Democrats did.
And let’s face it: the current Democratic economic program is quite thin; voters can reasonably question whether Democratic plans for the economy would be much of an improvement over what the previous Democratic administration delivered. Take energy.
. . . Rounding out the hit parade of Democratic economic policy ideas is that old favorite, “tax the rich.” There are now several versions in circulation whose policy defects we will pass over in charitable silence. But if this is what now passes for an innovative Democratic economic policy idea, they are perhaps in more trouble than I thought.
Feel free to agree or disagree below, but I recommend reading the whole article. I’m not only worried about the Democratic prospects in the next two years, but also about whether if Democrats do get in, it will be “progressive” Democrats or disguised progressives like Kamala Harris.
Here are Teixeira’s last words ever on this website:
Looking over this list of problems, one thing that stands out to me is that Democrats have never come to terms with how profoundly mistaken many of their priorities have been. These haven’t just been minor errors in implementing an otherwise fine program. Much of the program was simply wrong and, arguably, not even progressive.
It’s time—past time—for Democrats to discard the conceit that they are on the right side of history and that therefore their positions are, and have been, noble and correct. Until they do so, I do not expect them to develop the dominant majority coalition they seek and vanquish right populism. Indeed, it could be the other way around. That’s a sobering thought.
I’m not as pessimistic as Teixeira, but it’s time for liberals to speak out against illiberalism in their party, and demand that their candidates listen to their constituents.
I think Fetterman’s remark that the real leader of the Democratic party right now is TDS (Trump derangement syndrome) is useful to recall here. Trump can’t say or do anything that is not reflexively criticized by his Dem leaders, no matter what they previously said themselves. Not only does that makes them look silly (and hypocritical), it prevents them from seeing what voters want. Three of the topics Teixeira mentions (culture, trans, immigration) are key areas for Trump, so it is impossible for them psychologically to move towards the center. Then there is also the rhetorical trap they have laid for themselves: How do you even partially agree with Almost Hitler?
The Democratic Party is becoming the party of women, particularly educated women. Supported more by women, and increasingly run by women. Even when the Democrats have male candidates, they seem to be marching to the beat set by the women leaders in the party.
Basically, the Democratic Party resembles the current state of higher education.
This is not a slam on women but an observation. This matters because men and women at the population level show different ways of viewing the world…for example women tend to be a bit more risk averse, slightly more anxious and more concerned about building consensus when making decisions.
So, I expect the Democratic Party to increasingly move towards things that women, particularly the highly educated, tend to favor. Open borders, tolerance for subjective definitions of sex and gender, cultural relativism (“there are no bad cultures, except for white male cultures”), viewing free speech as a “form of violence” and therefore favoring speech codes, concern for those groups who have been labeled “oppressed”, highly redistributive economic policies (i.e. “socialism”)…these are what we are going to see more and more of from the Dems.
In some sense, it is a mirror image of the current Republicans, who seem to be dominated by men exhibiting some of the most stereotypical “toxic masculinity” traits of brazen impulsiveness, machismo, bellicosity, and the urge to dominate.
Democrats running in districts that are even remotely competitive will campaign as “moderates” but govern as “progressives.” Simply look at the lockstep voting of incumbents on culture war issues. As Teixeira says, their strategy is to quit talking about these issues and hope that we don’t notice. I also don’t think Democrats care about the “bigoted” working class who have left the party; as long as those people don’t vote for Republicans, the Democrats are just fine if they drop out of civic engagement and stay away from the voting booth. They are counting on their college-educated voters to stick with them even if some disagree on trans, immigration, voter ID, Israel, free speech, due process, and other matters. It’s the attitude of would-be rulers rather than representatives. But why should they not rule when they are on the right side of history?
From Orwell, in the The Road to Wigan Pier:
“The truth is that, to many people calling themselves Socialists, revolution does not mean a movement of the masses with which they hope to associate themselves; it means a set of reforms which ‘we’, the clever ones, are going to impose upon ‘them’, the Lower Orders. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to regard the book-trained Socialist as a bloodless creature entirely incapable of emotion. Though seldom giving much evidence of affection for the exploited, he is perfectly capable of displaying hatred—a sort of queer, theoretical, in vacuo hatred—against the exploiters.”
The article is spot-on.
I am no fan of Trump. But. If the Dems want my vote, they had better come up with more reasons than getting rid of Trump, especially when an increasing number of leading Democratic candidates follow policies that I consider harmful (to say the least).
It is not just the Democrats; the Republicans are guilty as well.
Imagine if, back in 1941, there was a media personality that said “America deserved December 7”. No politician would associate with him. Today, we have politicians begging to associate with Hasan Piker.
Or imagine that, during the war, some media twit would praise Hitler—the leader of our enemies. Again, such a person would be unacceptable—toxic in fact. And yet, you have people coming up to Nick Fuentes.
(By the way, are Fuentes and Piker the same guy? Has anyone seen them together?……….)
What was once unacceptable is now becoming the norm on both sides—but from what I see, it is far worse on the left.
HA! Well put (again) Starwolf.
Piker and Fuentes…. hmmm. Good point. Actually I’ve never heard the voices of either, or read a word of them: I only know them by the outrage reflection of people I do trust.
Also like the “America’s fault on Dec 7th” bit.
D.A.
NYC🗽
I agree entirely as a Dem voter (since I could, in 2000).
I’d add – from my own disillusionment – it is now the crazed moral panic party.
The BLM lie, wildly counterproductive #metoo, green apocalypticism, and Trans stupidity had me doubting and annoyed, but “Palestine” buried them for me.
I doubt I’ll ever vote for them again.
D.A.
NYC🗽
Same here. Nor will I vote Republican. At the moment I’m seriously considering ending my days ignoring the elections. We’ll see.
I have a longterm friend who is the chair of the local Democratic Party. She literally goes door to door campaigning for the democrats. Another friend and I tried to tell her how and why the trans issue was hurting the party.
Her response?
“That’s not a real issue, the Republicans just use it to deflect from the REAL issues.” She never addressed any specific point, just repeated multiple versions of “we don’t talk about this.”
Somehow the trans issue is simultaneously a minor, insignificant, pointless distraction AND a hill they will gladly die on before they let it go.
The phrase “100% a hill I will die on” has literally been used on the trans issue. Chase Strangio (ACLU – infamous for losing SKrmetti case) used the phrase. One liberal Democrat (Seth Moulton D-MA) tried to move towards the center on trans issues. Quote (from him) “I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I’m supposed to be afraid to say that”. The backlash was fierce. His campaign manager (Matt Chilliak) resigned. There were demonstrations against him. He was denounced by the head (Liz Bradt) of the local Democratic party (who called him a Nazi Collaborator), the mayor of Salem, and the governor of Massachusetts. He is (in my opinion) somebody to watch. He may be the President of the US in the future.
Two articles that complement Ruy Teixeira’s piece:
Thomas Edsall: Why Are So Many Democratic Politicians So Far Out of Touch? New York Times, March 24, 2026
https://archive.ph/Kx4J6
Matthew Yglesias: What Democrats Should Relearn From Obama. New York Times, March 16, 2026
https://archive.ph/6eRZ1
A quote from Stanford University political scientist Morris Fiorina (born 1946):
Morris Fiorina: America’s Biggest Political Division Isn’t Left vs. Right. Reason, Nov 2022 (available online)
It’s the superpolitical vs. everyone else.
Review of The Other Divide: Polarization and Disengagement in American Politics, by Yanna Krupnikov & John Barry Ryan, Cambridge University Press
I agree with almost everything in the article, except this (which is a quote from somebody else):
It is perfectly possible to be strongly in favor of closed borders AND strongly opposed to deporting immigrants who have lived lawfully for many years in the US. This is why:
When people try to enter the country illegally and are either stopped at the border or apprehended shortly afterwards, then deportation is a punishment that is perfectly proportional and fitting for their crime.
But as we know, enforcement has been so lax that many illegal immigrants have been able to remain in the country for years. Over time, they have done what most people do: they’ve put down roots, by getting married, making families and friends, and often working in the same jobs for years. If they are deported now, the punishment doesn’t just remove them from the country, it uproots them from their entire lives.
I believe that the legal principle that punishments should be proportional to the crimes would justify something akin to the statute of limitations that bars prosecution for crimes short of murder after seven years. The legal rationale would be to avoid over-punishment. And no, it would no more ‘legalize’ illegal entry than the statute of limitation legalizes the commission of felonies.
Well, that’s certainly the easy way out.
Crimes have statutory limitations because guilt is hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt when a long time has elapsed: witnesses die or get dementia, evidence gets lost, police detectives who personally remembered the case retire and the file gets pushed to the back of the cabinet. You’re not forgiving the criminal, just recognizing that likelihood of conviction to justify prosecution resources withers away.
None of that applies to illegal entry into the country. The mere fact that you have no documentation proves the civil case on balance of probability that you are here illegally, no matter how long you have evaded the authorities. So the civil remedy (which isn’t punishment because you aren’t being deprived of life, liberty, or property when you are removed) can be applied. Out you go. You and the United States, the two sides in the civil proceeding, are just being each restored to the status quo ante your arrival: you are outside the country and the United States doesn’t have you in it. Disruption of your life is something you knew might happen when you came to America and decided to put down illegal roots. Neither here nor there.
The difficulty with amnesty is that it sends a message to foreigners that if they can sneak in and stay under the radar for some indefinite time they are immune against removal, and so more will try. If this is the kind of country you want — maybe you do but I don’t know why you would — then that’s your choice. But you do have to be aware of the expected consequences. Most people aren’t incentivized to commit crimes just because there is a statue of limitations that they might get really lucky and beat. But millions will sneak into America, whether you want them or not, if all they have to do is lie low for a few years. Again, if that’s what you want, then congratulations, you will get it. But if a lot of people don’t want that, then it undermines confidence and support of the immigration system generally. It’s not cost-free. In any event, Congress would have to amend the immigration law. Can you see it doing that?
Here in Michigan we have a significant rally of young democratic voters getting behind a populist Senate candidate (El-Sayed), who is very entangled with a rabid pro-Hamas influencer. But of course the chicken in every pot populism is just to get the anti-Semitic camel into the tent. It is very worrisome.
https://apnews.com/article/young-voters-democrats-elsayed-piker-dingell-39af2f7ec9517febe2b15701f4ed26cd
As the token libertarian* here, I’m used to wishing “A pox on both your houses.” Apparently, so is the American public. As of the end of 2025, registered independents made up 45% of the electorate vs roughly 27% for each of the two major parties. There are a huge number of disaffected voters out there. That’s unsurprising given that the Republicans have rejected any form of principled conservatism in favor of a cult of personality and the Democrats are running left as fast as they can. Politicians in both members of the duopoly are more terrified of their fringe than they are committed to any principles.
This factionalism is only going to get worse as the voters in the middle give up, unwilling to vote for anyone who can survive the primaries of either major party. The first party to produce another Reagan or Bill Clinton will win in a landslide, but neither of them would be palatable to the current incarnations of their parties.
[*]In the last election cycle, the Libertarian Party was taken over by a bunch of alt-right edge lords and stealth Trump supporters, so I have to be careful to use the lowercase ‘l’.