As the 2026 midterms loom, a simmering debate within Democratic circles has reached a boiling point: Should the party abandon the moral high ground and play political hardball?
In recent years, Democrats have leaned heavily on the ethos of civility and hope—famously embodied by Michelle Obama’s 2016 rallying cry, “When they go low, we go high.” But with the GOP embracing increasingly combative rhetoric and tactics, some strategists argue it’s time for Democrats to recalibrate their messaging—and their muscle.
The former First Lady’s husband agrees. At a July fundraiser, former President Barack Obama didn’t mince words. “It’s going to require a little bit less navel-gazing and a little less whining and being in fetal positions,” he told attendees. “And it’s going to require Democrats to just toughen up.” His remarks drew enthusiastic applause—but also underscored growing impatience with the party’s internal hesitations.
Obama elaborated, challenging disengaged voters and party members alike: “Don’t tell me you’re a Democrat, but you’re kind of disappointed right now, so you’re not doing anything. No, now is exactly the time that you get in there and do something.”
While many voters admire Democrats’ emphasis on integrity, others worry it’s come at a cost. Polling from earlier this year shows a growing perception of the party as “too cautious” or “out of touch” with cultural and economic frustrations. This vulnerability is particularly acute among working-class voters who feel overlooked.
Strategists believe that if Democrats continue to avoid bold confrontation, they risk ceding ground not just politically, but psychologically—where grit and conviction win hearts as well as votes.
According to a recent Wall Street Journal poll, 63% of voters now hold an unfavorable view of the party, marking the lowest approval rating since 1990.
The poll paints a stark picture:
- Only 33% of voters view Democrats favorably, with just 8% expressing a “very favorable” opinion.
- Democrats are now viewed less favorably than both President Donald Trump and the Republican Party, despite their own poor ratings.
- Voters increasingly describe the party as “weak,” “out of touch,” and lacking a clear economic message.
Political strategist Susan Estrich echoed Obama’s sentiment. In a recent column she wrote, “It’s going to require Democrats to just toughen up… I’ve been surprised by how many people seem cowed and intimidated, shrinking away from asserting what they believe.”
In his book, Comeback, M. Steven Fish critiques the left’s approach to political communication arguing liberals and their leaders need to renew their commitment to what he calls “the politics of dominance.”
Voters “want to be on the winning team,” Fish writes. “They favor leaders who project indomitability rather than vulnerability. They admire and trust leaders with stiff spines and strong principles.”
However, Mark Elias, founder of Democracy Docket has an optimistic outlook. He said “Democrats have a real opportunity to retake the House and Senate in 2026.”
In a recent column he writes that “History is on the Democrats’ side. Since Trump entered the political scene, Democrats have outperformed in midterm elections. In 2018, they took control of the House — gaining 40 seats — while sharply limiting losses in the Senate. In 2022, they defied expectations by gaining a Senate seat and minimizing House losses.”
Democrats face a double bind: too tough, and they risk alienating moderates; too soft, and they lose their base’s respect. The challenge in 2026 may be finding a tonal middle ground—forceful but fair, passionate but principled.
As the fight for the soul of American democracy continues, Democrats must decide whether “going high” still resonates—or whether, in an age of escalating political warfare, it’s time to stand tall and swing back.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum, and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
SUGGESTION: Poll: Democrats In Crisis Amid Shifting Voter Sentiment
democrat donkey Getty Images
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.