Why the Democrats are struggling

We're in a politics of power, not legitimacy

California governor Gavin Newsom has had a moment in the news again. Social media posts mocking Trump’s communication style, along with a press conference to discuss the possible California plan to counter Texas redistricting have generated this buzz, which inevitably leads to questions about Newsom’s 2028 prospects. Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker is also in this mix, appearing on Stephen Colbert’s show to talk about defending democracy from this latest power consolidation attempt. I’m not ready to jump all the way into the 2028 debates just yet – I have my own views about the potential candidates. But there’s a larger question here: why are some Democrats having so much trouble rising to the moment in 2025, and why have a couple of governors managed to break through and appear more effective? I’m not sure that I have satisfying answers to all of this, but looking at some party history can help a bit.

Since January 2025, American politics has shifted decisively away from being based on legitimacy, and is instead now mostly a game of power. In other words, the Trumpist GOP – which controls the federal government and much at the subnational level – uses whatever power is available to them, without much concern about legitimacy. Typically, in a democracy, uses of power would be limited by what can be justified in terms of democratic values, accepted practices, and norms like reciprocity. This viewpoint about how politicians treat power in a democracy builds on some of what Levitsky and Ziblatt argue about forbearance and mutual toleration. In the pieces I’ve written on democratic values, I’ve emphasized the importance of recognizing legitimate opposition – similar to Adam Przeworski’s definition of democracy as a system in which “parties lose elections.” We’re all saying different versions of the same thing.

Democratic rhetoric plays an important role in a politics that is based on legitimacy. Politicians justify their actions in terms of shared values and practices – not by vilifying their opponents, or, by the righteousness of their cause.

Much of this has gone by the wayside as the Trump administration asserts its right to – for example – reinterpret the 14^th amendment by fiat, undermine due process, and ask states to redistrict to gain more Republican seats. There were signs of this in Trump’s first term, and even before that, especially with the Tea Party movement and the party’s response to Obama. But the past seven months have represented a much more significant shift in the basis of politics: toward power, away from legitimacy.

The Democratic Party is not well-suited to this style of politics. This isn’t entirely a knock – a party that’s deeply wedded to arguments about legitimacy instead of thinking about ways to use raw power isn’t the worst thing. But the particular way that the Democratic Party operates and has evolved makes it especially poorly equipped to respond to this year’s developments.

Legitimacy, as expressed through procedural fairness, has long been the essence of the Democratic coalition. This goes back, really, to the party’s formation in the 1830s and the goal of bringing together highly varied interests, across regional, economic and ideological – as well as ethnic and religious – differences. There were some ideas about government that bound the coalition together, stronger at some points in time than others, but an important guiding principle was the processes that held the party together. This has included various types of party rules – representation at the state level, Congressional procedures, the two-thirds rule that protected the South’s veto over presidential nominations until the 1930s. The Democrats’ emphasis on process was also reflected in the McGovern-Fraser reforms of the 1960s, which adapted the party for a new era by creating more rules about representation, about how primaries and caucuses should be conducted, about how delegates to the national convention should be selected. The corollary to this problem for Democrats is the challenges they face adapting to a nationalized political environment, because the party has so long been a coalition that accommodates a great deal of regional and ideological variety. Appeals to fair processes have been the glue that holds that together.

Congressional Democrats – by way of explanation, not excuse – occupy a political position at the center of this tension. Congress is all about procedure, and Congressional leaders have to blend the representation that’s still tied to states and districts with the party’s national message and agenda. Governors have fewer of these pressures, which creates more opportunity for figures like Newsom and Pritzker.

They’ve taken somewhat different approaches to this task. Newsom seems to have embraced the idea of adopting somewhat Trump-style politics – showier, more bombastic, and straightforward about naming a power grab and demonstrating willingness to respond in kind. Pritzker similarly asserted that he would do what was necessary to defend democracy. Not to get too much into my Illinois feelings, but Pritzker’s approach – talking about Texas Democrats going to Illinois and the Texas redistricting case as a national voting issue had echoes of Lincoln and arguments about national purpose and character that animated the original Republican party. (See the Colbert clip linked at the top). His implication is that the rules and procedures all come from the larger purpose of democracy. He also acknowledged that that once the rules have been abandoned by opponents, the game is fundamentally different. In a weird way, because governors don’t have the same process-driven obligation to try to cobble together a national message that Congressional leaders do, they are free to connect their national claims to ideas and values instead.

One of my standard lines in the long Trump era has been that what’s striking is not always what has changed but what’s stayed more or less the same. The Democratic Party has proved to be a very durable and adaptable, if always clunky, structure in American politics. But at a moment when the other party’s project is to deny that opposition can be legitimate and lean heavily into power tactics, it’s time to move on from a politics of process and legitimacy. Let’s hope the move can be temporary.