Kudos to Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. She managed to generate the most negatively iconic photo of a Democrat since Michael Dukakis wore a helmet atop a tank.
Whitmer, long considered a promising presidential prospect by Democratic insiders, was at the White House to discuss state business. But when Donald Trump’s aides whisked her into the Oval Office, it was not for the planned one-on-one with the president, but for a photo op during which the Trump signed (outrageous) executive orders targeting two perceived political enemies for criminal investigation. Realizing that she was in a political tiger pit, Whitmer opted for the Ostrich Maneuver. Lacking sand to stick her head in, she hid her face behind some binders.
The photo perfectly encapsulates Democratic dysfunction. Her White House visit was wholly defensible, but because she was in the room when Trump was doing something indefensible, she’s being vilified by her own side for enabling Trump, generating more “Dems in disarray” drama in the process.
Of course, the Dems really are in disarray.
If you just go by the topline 2024 presidential election returns, it’s not obvious they should be. Kamala Harris lost by 1.48% of the popular vote, the fifth closest election since 1900.
And yet, Democrats are a mess. In March, the party hit its all-time low in popularity. Last week — a bad week for Trump — Quinnipiac released a poll finding that voters are evenly split — 33% to 33% — on the question of which party cares more about them and their problems. Democrats had led on that question by double digits, going back to 1994.
“This to me is the most shocking pieces of poll data that I truthfully have seen this year, maybe in any prior year,” CNN’s polling guru Harry Enten exclaimed.
The main driver of the Democrats’ plight is that the party that likes to see itself as the party of the little guy is perceived, not inaccurately, as the party of urban and coastal elites by the largest chunk of the electorate: white voters without a college degree. More broadly, voters remain profoundly distrustful of elite institutions, and progressives have dominated most of those institutions for decades.
What the Democrats can do to fix themselves and voters’ perception is the subject of intense internal debate. At least four options have emerged.
The first is to replay the “resist!” theatrics of the first Trump term. The second is the “Fight the Oligarchy!” tour headlined by Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexendra Ocasio-Cortez, which made a splash in California over the weekend. Both approaches are psychologically appealing to Democrats because they require no philosophical introspection or political self-correction.
Not so Option 3. “Abundance” is the buzzword and book title for a technocratic theory of “supply-side liberalism” that seeks to clear away the red tape and interest-group NIMBYism standing in the way of government planners who want to expedite the delivery of public services — housing, high speed rail, etc.
This course has the most to recommend it. But it has three political weaknesses. First, the bureaucratic bottlenecks that the abundance Dems want to circumvent are closely guarded by progressive constituencies. If you want to bulldoze through the Clean Water or Endangered Species acts, you won’t be picking fights with a lot of Republicans. You’ll be antagonizing well-heeled Democrats and a liberal-dominated media that reflexively casts such efforts in a negative light. Second, national Democrats are powerless in the Republican-controlled House and Senate. So absent a truly courageous governor, they can’t demonstrate the efficacy of their ideas. Last, it essentially represents a bunch of elite eggheads saying “trust us, we’re different now” when no one trusts them.
Ironically, the fourth option is symbolically close to what Whitmer did: Hide. Or, as James Carville puts it, “Play dead.” Keep your head down and powder dry while Trump self-immolates.
I think this is, by far, the wisest course in the short term. Trump’s approval, most notably on the economy, is plummeting. A majority — 54% — of Americans think Trump’s policies are responsible for the state of the economy. If trends continue Trump will lose support from the groups that believed he could deliver on his economic promises.
The problem is the long term. Our politics are broken because both parties have given up on the idea of being majority parties. When out of power, they rely on turning out their bases and the unpopularity of their incumbent opponents to squeak out narrow victories, only to squander power on fan service to their bases once elected. This cycle can be broken only by a party that, when elected, opts to build a majority from the center-out. I see no sign of that happening anytime soon.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- Jonah Goldberg argues that Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s viral Oval Office photo symbolizes Democratic dysfunction, drawing parallels to Michael Dukakis’s 1988 tank photo as a moment of political misstep[5].
- He contends that Whitmer’s defensible visit to discuss Michigan-specific issues (e.g., disaster aid, Selfridge Air National Guard Base) was overshadowed by her presence during Trump’s “indefensible” actions, fueling intra-party criticism and perceptions of disarray[5].
- Goldberg identifies four Democratic strategies to address their challenges: resistance tactics, progressive populism (“Fight the Oligarchy”), technocratic “supply-side liberalism,” and the “play dead” approach, which he views as the wisest short-term strategy given Trump’s declining poll numbers[5].
- He asserts that long-term party viability requires building a majority “from the center-out,” but sees little evidence of this shift, criticizing both parties for prioritizing base mobilization over broad appeal[5].
Different views on the topic
- Whitmer’s Pragmatic Advocacy: Whitmer defended her Oval Office visit as necessary to secure federal disaster aid for Michigan and advocate for issues like invasive carp management and trade relations with Canada, stating, “If I can get either of those things, it’s all worth it”[1][4]. She dismissed the photo controversy as a lighthearted moment, emphasizing her focus on state priorities over political optics[1][2][3].
- Intra-Party Criticism: Some Democrats accused Whitmer of enabling Trump by appearing alongside him during executive orders targeting his critics, with operatives warning it could harm her 2028 prospects[3][5]. Critics argued the visual of Trump praising her contrasted with her party’s stance[2][3].
- Trade Policy Divisions: While Whitmer endorsed strategic tariffs to protect Michigan’s auto industry, calling them a “blunt instrument” requiring clear objectives[5], Colorado Gov. Jared Polis rebuked tariffs as harmful to consumers and manufacturers, reflecting broader Democratic tensions over trade strategy[5].
- Focus on Economic Realities: Governors like JB Pritzker (IL) and Gavin Newsom (CA) prioritized mitigating tariff impacts on state economies, avoiding ideological debates in favor of highlighting rising costs tied to Trump’s policies[5]. Strategists urged framing Trump’s approach as “erratic” to deflect from philosophical splits[5].
- Diplomatic vs. Confrontational Approaches: Whitmer’s emphasis on engagement (“If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu”) diverged from peers who openly opposed Trump, illustrating a rift between pragmatism and resistance within the party[2][3][5].
