Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Despite infighting, Democrats can still unite around one common goal

Opinion

Despite infighting, Democrats can still unite around one common goal

President Donald Trump is a unifying issue for Democrats and Republicans. Above, he speaks during a meeting with President of Argentina Javier Milei in the Cabinet Room at the White House on Oct. 14, 2025, in Washington, D.C.

(Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images/TNS)

The only thing the parties can agree on is that Donald Trump is the central issue of our time.

Let’s start with a recent headline: “It’s 2025, and Democrats Are Still Running Against Trump.”


“After a year of soul-searching and introspection by Democrats about what they should stand for after losing the White House and Senate in 2024,” Shane Goldmacher of the New York Times writes, “the party is largely coalescing behind the same message that has united it for the past decade: stopping Donald J. Trump.”

Now, I confess to having missed a great deal of soul-searching and introspection among Democrats, but I am reminded of a very different search that happened two decades ago: the search for “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq.

While you might think I am going for some weird metaphor comparing President Trump to a WMD, that’s not my point.

For those too young to remember, the George W. Bush administration focused on Saddam Hussein’s WMD program as the major — some would say sole — justification for toppling the Iraqi dictator.

This became more controversial after U.S. forces failed to find the WMDs the Bush administration, and others, said were there. For opponents of the war, this turned into the refrain that Bush had “ lied America into war.”

This was always unfair. Then-Pentagon official Paul Wolfowitz, in a now forgotten but once very controversial interview with Vanity Fair, explained why the administration focused on WMDs. “(W)e settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction,” Wolfowitz said, “because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.”

It may seem like a stretch — probably because it is — but the parallel came to mind because Trump plays a similar dynamic inside the Democratic Party.

Some segments of the party, personified by Sen. Bernie Sanders and New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, are flirting with socialism or social democracy. Others are trying to carve out a more centrist, Bill Clinton-style, lane. Some hate Israel. Others defend it. Some want to open the government. Others want to keep the shutdown going. Some support the so-called “abundance agenda,” which seeks to curb government red tape and activist-driven NIMBYism, while others oppose it as a rollback of hard-won environmental and labor protections.

But the one thing they all can agree on: They don’t like Trump.

There are other reasons for focusing on the president. “I worry that Donald Trump is like crack cocaine for our party,” Democratic pollster Celinda Lake told The Times. “Trump is very seductive because when you put up an ad that’s anti-Trump, you get a lot of small-dollar contributions, you get a lot of activists saying, ‘Great job!’ ”

Lake and other Democrats worry that focusing so much on Trump is distracting the party from fashioning a more positive agenda. They’re right. Democrats are about as unpopular as they’ve ever been. This is partly because diehards are mad at their own party for not being tougher in its “resistance” to Trump (hence the shutdown). Other Democrats believe the party is too left-wing and are simply abandoning it.

For instance, in the last five years, nearly twice as many Pennsylvania Democrats switched their registration to the GOP as the other way around. It should be no surprise that opposition to Trump unifies the Democrats who haven’t left for the Republican Party.

Democrats hope that in the short term, opposition to Trump may be enough to win the upcoming off-year gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey and, perhaps, in the coming midterms.

After all, Trump is unpopular too. His overall approval is just 37%, according to the latest AP-NORC poll. The Economist has him at 40% approving of his second term, with 55% disapproving. Americans give him low scores on the economy and, now, immigration as well.

Still, there’s scant reason to hope for a “blue wave” in next year’s midterms. During the same period in his first term, Democrats had a 9-point advantage on the generic congressional ballot. Now, it’s 1.6 points. A lot rides on where the economy will be a year from now.

However, Trump isn’t just a unifying issue for Democrats. He’s a unifying issue for Republicans as well, which is one reason more people than ever are identifying as independents. Increasingly, calling yourself a Republican means being a Trump supporter for much the same reason that calling yourself a Democrat means being a Trump opponent: It’s the only thing the GOP can agree on.

What this means for the future is unclear, save for one thing: Once Trump is no longer president, or even once he’s a lame duck, both parties are going to have a huge fight trying to figure out what they stand for.

Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.

Read More

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

A deep look at the fight over rescinding Medals of Honor from U.S. soldiers at Wounded Knee, the political clash surrounding the Remove the Stain Act, and what’s at stake for historical justice.

Getty Images, Stocktrek Images

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

Should the U.S. soldiers at 1890’s Wounded Knee keep the Medal of Honor?

Context: history

Keep ReadingShow less
The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

Migrant families from Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela and Haiti live in a migrant camp set up by a charity organization in a former hospital, in the border town of Matamoros, Mexico.

(Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to end Temporary Protected Status for roughly 600,000 Venezuelans living in the United States, effective November 7, 2025. Although the exact mechanisms and details are unclear at this time, the message from DHS is: “Venezuelans, leave.”

Proponents of the Administration’s position (there is no official Opinion from SCOTUS, as the ruling was part of its shadow docket) argue that (1) the Secretary of DHS has discretion to determine designate whether a country is safe enough for individuals to return from the US, (2) “Temporary Protected Status” was always meant to be temporary, and (3) the situation in Venezuela has improved enough that Venezuelans in the U.S. may now safely return to Venezuela. As a lawyer who volunteers with immigrants, I admit that the two legal bases—Secretary’s broad discretion and the temporary nature of TPS—carry some weight, and I will not address them here.

Keep ReadingShow less
For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

Praying outdoors

ImagineGolf/Getty Images

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

The American experiment has been sustained not by flawless execution of its founding ideals but by the moral imagination of people who refused to surrender hope. From abolitionists to suffragists to the foot soldiers of the civil-rights movement, generations have insisted that the Republic live up to its creed. Yet today that hope feels imperiled. Coarsened public discourse, the normalization of cruelty in policy, and the corrosion of democratic trust signal more than political dysfunction—they expose a crisis of meaning.

Naming that crisis is not enough. What we need, I argue, is a recovered ethic of humaneness—a civic imagination rooted in empathy, dignity, and shared responsibility. Eric Liu, through Citizens University and his "Civic Saturday" fellows and gatherings, proposes that democracy requires a "civic religion," a shared set of stories and rituals that remind us who we are and what we owe one another. I find deep resonance between that vision and what I call humane theology. That is, a belief and moral framework that insists public life cannot flourish when empathy is starved.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

U.S. Supreme Court

Photo by mana5280 on Unsplash

The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

Two years after the Supreme Court banned race-conscious college admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, universities are scrambling to maintain diversity through “race-neutral” alternatives they believe will be inherently fair. New economic research reveals that colorblind policies may systematically create inequality in ways more pervasive than even the notorious “old boy” network.

The “old boy” network, as its name suggests, is nothing new—evoking smoky cigar lounges or golf courses where business ties are formed, careers are launched, and those not invited are left behind. Opportunity reproduces itself, passed down like an inheritance if you belong to the “right” group. The old boy network is not the only example of how a social network can discriminate. In fact, my research shows it may not even be the best one. And how social networks discriminate completely changes the debate about diversity.

Keep ReadingShow less