Having just secured control of both chambers of Congress following their defeat of Trump, Democrats are already grappling with internal divisions. At root, this victory carries a structural flaw: voters did not actively endorse the Democratic Party’s policy agenda. Instead, their support stemmed largely from opposition to Trump—driven by discontent over gasoline prices, tariffs, and foreign military engagements—not an endorsement of Democratic leadership.
Historical precedents exist. After the Republican landslide in 1994, the party misread public sentiment, assuming broad backing for its hardline stance, only to lose momentum rapidly and suffer defeat in the 1996 election to Clinton. Earlier, Republicans similarly misinterpreted youth and Latino voter inclinations as widespread support, leading to an aggressive governing approach that backfired. Victories built on opponents’ weaknesses often prove fragile internally—and the current fractures within the Democratic Party run deeper than those seen in the Republican Party at the time.
A key player in this dynamic is the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), a group that began as a small, niche organization with just a few thousand members. The 2016 presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders—calling for a crackdown on Wall Street and the elimination of billionaires—spurred massive youth engagement. Today, DSA claims approximately 130,000 members.
The group does not field candidates under a separate party banner but operates exclusively within the Democratic Party. Figures such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and New York City Mayor Eric Adams are affiliated with DSA. This election cycle saw several DSA-backed candidates win seats, bringing the total number of DSA-affiliated members in Congress to nine. Their platform includes universal healthcare, student debt cancellation, higher taxes on the wealthy, and reduced U.S. intervention abroad.
Opposing them are established moderate Democrats like Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris, who adhere to the pragmatic, centrist tradition of Obama and Biden. The Democratic Party has long been a coalition of diverse interests. Now, the challenge lies in the fact that the new moderate seats were largely won in redistricted swing districts—voters attracted by a down-to-earth, non-ideological message. Any shift toward more progressive policies risks alienating these newly acquired constituencies. Meanwhile, DSA-aligned progressives typically ousted entrenched establishment figures in deep-blue primary contests, where fundraising advantages could not prevent their defeat—indicating that the left wing now firmly controls the party’s base.
In short, DSA functions within the Democratic Party much like MAGA did within the Republican Party: both movements emerged from grassroots discontent within established parties. While MAGA opposed globalization and political elites, DSA focuses on economic inequality and the influence of money in politics. The difference lies in leadership structure: MAGA coalesced around a singular figure—Trump—while DSA lacks a unified leader. As a result, its rise to power will be more fragmented, though no less consequential. Much like how the Tea Party eventually captured Republican governance after the 2006 and 2010 elections, DSA’s influence may grow incrementally but decisively.
The first front in this emerging conflict is AI regulation. Left-leaning legislators have called for a pause on advanced AI development, advocating for strict oversight. Silicon Valley donors and moderate Democrats prefer only modest regulatory constraints. One side seeks to rein in major tech firms; the other hesitates to alienate powerful financial contributors. These conflicting interests collide directly. Adding complexity, social welfare initiatives require substantial funding—each policy proposal effectively means another faction must bear the cost.
Overall, while moderates currently hold the majority in the new Congress, the rhythm of primary elections and the energy behind mobilization remain in the hands of the left. The sequencing of legislative agendas in the coming session—particularly the array of hearings—will serve as a strategic prelude to the 2028 presidential primaries. The actual battle for nomination will come later, when moderates seek consensus candidates and progressives leverage their base strength. Whether a reverse-Trump moment emerges hinges on whether DSA can translate its dominance in blue-state primaries into success in the national presidential contest.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1881352459405324/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.