Dems in the Wilderness

Right now the Democratic Party is suffering its own version of the “wilderness years,” having lost control of the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that there’s a Democratic power broker with Churchill’s profile, pulpit, or personality, but there is positioning going on within the party. Piecing that together can give us a profile of an emerging opposition, and perhaps a path to victory.

Defining the opposition: Churchill’s target was fellow Conservative Neville Chamberlain who looked feckless and powerless in appeasing the Germans in the leadup to World War II. President Trump presents a much tougher target. He has learned from his first term and is not giving the opposition any opportunity to focus an attack on him. Trump issues new executive orders daily, fires numerous federal officials, and releases statements too rapidly for Democrats to keep up with. It’s not just the speed he’s doing this with, it’s the seemingly scattershot nature. A perfect example is his declaration that he will ban the penny; economists are all left scratching their heads on when and how he will do that, and what it means.

Democratic efforts so far to grab back the attention with dramatic optics have failed miserably. The most vivid example of this was the 30 or so House Dems who descended on the Department of Education to protest proposed spending cuts. A security guard denied them entry. It was a disaster of a public relations stunt. It was unclear who they hoped to meet with, what they planned to say, and whether their issue was still relevant that day, given Trump’s ongoing onslaught.

The wilderness beckons: When Churchill was out of power, he left London. He traveled and wrote, staying active and vocal away from the halls of power but taking time to formulate his own ideas and opinions. He switched out of reactive mode, biding his time to resume proactive mode.