Democrats’ losing message in Washington

As President Trump and Elon Musk slash indiscriminately, Democrats are struggling to find a counter message to the chaos

Here’s a hard truth: A lot of Americans don’t care or are unphased by the aggressive federal government cuts, theatrics and layoffs in Washington — they are worried about their own financial well being. 

For years, they’ve seen a rapidly shifting job market and more recently unremitting inflation. Blame is often misplaced, at least in part, but when Donald Trump and his ever-present ally Elon Musk move aggressively to slash and burn (and, yes, ignore Constitutional practices, the law, and established budget practices) there are Americans cheering it on. Many people voted for it, or something like it. 

Outside of Washington, some Democrats understand this. Inside the Beltway, where feelings are very intense, many Democrats seem to be on the backfoot — federal workers are being harassed and targeted. Democrats' pushback is emotional and about fairness and the right process. It’s valid on the merits, but it’s missing an understanding of deeper resentment. 

That doesn’t make what’s happening right — far from it.

One friend who has long worked in US international aid put it to me: “I’m watching my life’s work be dismantled.” It’s tragic. But we also discussed how some Democrats were responding.  Blocking USAID headquarters, chanting “we will fight, we will win.”  How is this a winning strategy? 

Resentment built over time 

The resentment felt today by many Americans didn’t just come about in one election cycle, or with one leader.  It’s been years in the making.  

In the late ‘50s and ‘60s, many Americans could achieve lifelong employment with a single company. It was a time when Union membership peaked. New Deal era programs provided a safety net for the retiring population, with Social Security and, after the ‘60s, Medicare. These programs relied on a robust workforce that continued to pay taxes, social security and other benefits.  

Ironically the first Union leader to serve as President, President Ronald Reagan, would oversee significant shift in employment protections. Reagan championed deregulation, and after 12,000 members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Association walked off the job, he invoked a rarely used law ordering them back to work.  After few complied, he fired those who didn’t, prosecuted union leadership and ultimately the union was decertified. Unions had already started losing the heft they had before President Reagan, but this marks a significant drop, a loss that continued in years to come. 

President Bill Clinton in some ways expanded on the deregulation of the era.  Between financial and telecommunications deregulation, and trade liberalization, jobs that had been protected started vanishing.  

Changes in technology, automation, a more global economy — it all shifted what some Americans had enjoyed. What went from a certain level of stability changed to a new unpredictability.  By the late 90s, service sector jobs outnumbered manufacturing jobs for the first time in US history. And while pay and profits for those at the top skyrocketed, middle class wages lingered. 

I came of age in this era, in the shadows of these major changes, in a town, Galesburg, Ill., where Maytag jobs were already declining, even before the plant closed for good in 2004. 

For my generation that idea of a single-company lifelong employment is rare.  More often, those of my generation are hopping jobs, or moving from gig to gig, hoping to maintain or secure healthcare benefits for their children and sometimes even their parents. 

The blame is often misplaced for these fortunes — and directed toward Washington. There's resentment because there is a deep feeling that no one fought for them. 

So, when there is a leader who threatens tariffs or trade restrictions, cuts off aid and government jobs (the one sector that still has more than 30% Union protection), it can be perceived as a move to vastly upend decades of neglect  — and even protect some who haven’t had the security of a government pension, or seen the benefits of the steady growth of federal spending.  

American jobs, not just resistance 

The chaos of this early term seems to be the constant so far. 

Much of the actions of this administration  —  President Trump and Musk — fail to follow the law or accepted precedents. There are often quick court decisions, even from Judges President Trump appointed, that normally act to slow the process, give the branch of government designed to authorize funding (Congress) the chance to act, to provide the legally required oversight.  

Another problem: Much of the “savings” so quickly sought, might be penny wise (turns out Trump is out on the expensive penny), pound foolish, because the axe is indiscriminate. The final goal is not clear — simply rousing populist sentiment seems to be the order of the day.  

Unlike a surgical knife, guided by specifics on what one can remove while the remaining organs must function, this seems more like chopping off one's leg and hoping the patient can walk. And that’s ignoring whether the leg was the problem in the first place. 

Much of what’s being done now is wrong — destroying USAID will diminish America’ standing in the world. Pushing out federal employees, with little thought process, will hurt our security, our food safety, health and many other facets of our lives we take for granted.  

I worry that these actions go too far, it won’t help the Americans looking for help, and that we won’t know until it’s too late the detriment that has been done. 

But I also worry that for Democrats to fight back, to get into a position of negotiating on behalf of the great number of us who believe a strong system of government protects its citizens, they have to have a message and a plan that resonates with those who feel left behind.  What is the alternative? Not just resistance to Trump, Musk and his DOGE minions, but an alternative that protects Americans’ jobs and security moving forward. 

The message has to be far broader than federal jobs or USAID. It can’t be playing respond to the actions of a chaos commander.  It can’t just be resistance (Democrats tried that and look where it got us.)  It has to acknowledge the resentment, make plans to correct for long neglected protections, and it has to be at its core about American jobs.  And trust there might be the lowest.