A Democratic Manifesto: Be Proactive, Not Reactive

The Democratic Party won big in this year’s midterm elections. The Democrats have flipped seven Senate seats and 42 House seats thus far. Impressive campaigns preceded many of these Senate victories, such as Michigan’s Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, Texas’s James Talarico, and Maine’s Troy Jackson. El-Sayed faced an Islamophobic smear campaign and overcame it to become the first Muslim Senator in U.S. history. Talarico won in deep-red Texas — the first Democrat to win a Senate seat there since 1988. Jackson, after the previous Democratic nominee dropped out of the race, won the Senate seat in a mere 101-day campaign (even less time than 2024 Presidential candidate Kamala Harris had to campaign) against five-term Republican incumbent Susan Collins. 

The list of historic wins for the Dems goes on, but as I see it, how the party interprets and builds on these victories will ultimately determine whether they remain in power. In this article, I want to outline a few goals and guidelines that Democrats need to follow to succeed over the next two years before the 2028 Presidential Election, which they should push for now and eventually try to achieve when, or if, they get a Democrat in the Oval Office. 

The Democrats should not interpret the midterm elections as an approval of most Democratic policies or politicians, but a repudiation of President Donald Trump’s second term. Senate and House minority leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) have dreadfully low approval ratings, with 26% and 24%, respectively. The Senators-elect El-Sayed, Jackson, Kansas’s Adam Hamilton (who won the first Democrat Senate seat since 1932), Illinois’s Juliana Stratton, and others have all indicated that they will not support Schumer. Schumer, though, has still boasted that he will be re-elected as the Democrats’ leader. Personally, I’m with the voters: There needs to be new leadership. 

Beyond the Senators-elect’s disapproval, and even the fact that both leaders come from a single state, they’ve proved ineffective at endorsing winning elections, or at least having these winning members back them. Neither Schumer nor Jeffries endorsed New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani in the Democratic primary election, and only Jeffries endorsed Mamdani in the general election — just barely before early voting started, meaning the endorsement was likely highly inconsequential to voters at that point. Schumer didn’t even say, and still hasn’t said, who he voted for in that election. What is the point of Democratic leadership that doesn’t even support the party’s candidate? These two have continued to lose influence and now serve as weak symbols for the Democratic Party. Schumer showed this lack of sway clearly through his endorsement of Michigan Representative Haley Stevens over El-Sayed in the Senate Democratic Primary. Stevens, of course, after already losing the Democratic primary, would then go to endorse the Republican candidate Mike Rogers over El-Sayed in the general election. Schumer can claim this was a surprise all he wants, but the writing was on the wall: At this point, Schumer and Jeffries resemble more moderate Republicans at this point compared to many of their new Democrat peers and don’t represent voters' shifting priorities. 

While I would be happy to see Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen and Massachusetts Representative Jim McGovern in Senate and House leadership roles, my personal take on that is irrelevant. My point is that the time of Schumer-Jeffries leadership should end and needs to change if the Democrats want to keep their newfound base. Realistically, Schumer and Jeffries will resume their leadership roles through the closed-door, secret ballot vote next month, earning enough votes to be the leaders behind the scenes. If the entire leadership organization remains the same, it’s the wrong decision that will need course correction. The party must include the more progressive elected members in other leadership positions, such as the whip or assistant Democratic leader. These members will need institutional support and power to seem and be legitimate for the voters who elected them. Not only will it please the voters and elected officials, but it will give the party a more active, rather than passive and moderate, agenda. 

Recent polling also shows two intertwined issues Democrats must tackle: the economy and rampant corruption. The party needs to be proactive, not reactive, in solving these problems.

First, Democrats must abolish the Senate’s filibuster. The linked Brookings article lists a way for the Democrats to achieve this through a complicated but somewhat likely process known as the “nuclear option” or “reform by ruling,” which requires the simple majority that the Democrats will have in January. By no longer requiring 60 votes in the affirmative to pass bills, legislation will pass more easily, and Democrats can provide real aid to Americans.

Second, Democrats need to “uncap” the House of Representatives to expand its membership and create a more representative Congress. The House has stayed at 435 members since 1929, and the population has nearly tripled since — we all deserve more representation. This process doesn’t require a constitutional amendment and will work through a simple bill. It is not that difficult to achieve, but it would only be relevant after the 2030 census.

Third, Democrats need to get corporate and “big” money out of politics. Whether it’s passing a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, passing major campaign finance reform, or not allowing members of Congress to hold and trade stocks, Democrats need to restore Americans’ faith that elected officials won't be bought off by large corporations and wealthy individuals. 

Fourth, they need to reform the Supreme Court to be, or at least appear, more democratic. Through presidential appointments that are approved by the Senate, many Americans already feel that the Supreme Court justices are politically biased rather than adhering to rational and truthful understandings of the Constitution. Maryland Representative Johnny Olszewski introduced an act this year to limit the court justices to 18-year terms — more support for this act or similar proposals will be necessary to make the court more democratic. 

Finally, the Democratic Party needs to properly reform its taxation policies and address wealth inequality. They should also focus on free healthcare and increasing real wages, but the Democrats most prominently need to lessen the gap between the ultra-wealthy and the rest of society. Marginal tax rates have decreased significantly in past decades, while minimum wages, especially the federal minimum wage, have barely increased to help working families and people. As Americans become increasingly worried about AI taking jobs and rising inflation, there is real economic reform that needs to happen to help the majority of the country. 

I believe these issues and ideas are the most important for Democrats to focus on in the next few years, possibly decades, but they also need to address another important factor: Trump. The President will have veto power to stop any action that the Democrats and Congress attempt. That doesn’t mean, however, that they shouldn’t attempt to pass legislation on any of the issues I previously mentioned. Democrats have a duty to represent the people and the voters, and by doing nothing because the President doesn’t like it will look poorly upon the party. The mere attempts to pass these progressive bills will signal that it is becoming increasingly possible to pass them, regardless of whether they do. If it comes to Trump’s desk and he vetoes these bills, then he will have to answer for his undemocratic and anti-working-class actions in Nov. 2028 and continue to run his approval rating into the ground. The Democrats are also necessary to approve the federal budget, and should use the opportunity to pressure Trump into capitulating to some of their demands. Regardless of whether they succeed in achieving these goals, the Democrats would be planting seeds for what Congress and the federal government may look like in 2029. It’s a win-win scenario for Democrats to attempt to push forward these bills to, at the very least, make the public believe that these goals are not too far out of reach, and convince potential voters interested in these ideas to come out and vote in their favor in 2028.

Whether the Democratic Party approves of the President or not, with reportedly 32% of people approving according to recent polls, there are many people who previously did or still do. The party will have to continue to appeal to the independent and willing Republican voter through a clear, active vision for the U.S. and its people. The Democrats must be likable to these voters and watch out for any real ways to alienate them, especially to voters who once championed Trump. The Democratic Party has a real issue with being liberal snobs who feel morally superior to any Republican voter, especially the Trump ones. Democrats should continue to work on their messaging to ensure they are inviting in as many working-class Americans outside the party as possible.

It also may be tempting to introduce mass impeachments and investigations against Trump and his cabinet, but consider the unintended consequences of these actions. The 2024 guilty verdict and the 2023 indictment against Trump only invigorated his base more than anything by the 2024 Presidential election. While it is important to limit any further egregious overreaches or abuses of power, it may be more important to not go on a seemingly “witch hunt” towards the cabinet and Trump. The majority of Americans want justice but likely not through excessive investigations that take time away from attempted or passed legislation that is actively helping Americans. Do what you can to ensure a strong rule of law, but approach with caution so that the voter base doesn’t get turned off, or worse — the pro-Trump base rallies. 

The Democratic Party: Please remember these issues during these next two years and beyond. Try to be likable to people “outside” the party. Don’t give in to easy “winners and losers” narratives about politics. Talarico may have turned Texas blue, but it’ll just as easily turn back red if you won’t listen to the more than four million people who voted for Republican candidate Ken Paxton. Be true representatives with active agendas and ideas beyond anti-Trumpism, and lead a new era in American politics. Please, don’t mess this up.