The Opinions - Obama’s Not Going to Save Democrats, but This Might

Episode Date: March 31, 2025

The Opinion writer Michelle Cottle and contributing Opinion writer Ben Rhodes discuss why the Democratic Party hasn’t launched an effective opposition and who they see as the future of the party.Thoughts? Email us at [e-mail] episode of “The Opinions” was produced by Vishakha Darbha. It was edited by Kaari Pitkin and Alison Bruzek. The rest of the show's production team also includes Derek Arthur and Jillian Weinberger. Mixing by Sonia Herrero. Original music by Pat McCusker, Sonia Herrero and Carole Sabouraud. Fact-checking by Mary Marge Locker. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Kristina Samulewski. The director of Opinion Audio is Annie-Rose Strasser. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This is The Opinions, a show that brings you a mix of voices from New York Times Opinion. You've heard the news. Here's what to make of it. I'm Michelle Cottle, and I cover national politics for Times Opinion. So I've been watching the political scene for nearly three decades, and the question I'm getting these days more than any other is, what the heck are the Democrats doing? And related to that, what can the opposition to the Trump administration do? to fight back, to win back voters, to build a new movement.

These are great questions. And here to help me answer them is Ben Rhodes. Ben is probably best known for his work as a speechwriter and Deputy National Security Advisor to President Obama. More recently, he and I have both been reporting and interviewing a host of Democrats and we've written pieces to try and understand the current state of the party. and what it needs to do to survive and maybe even thrive in these turbulent times. Ben, thank you so much for joining me.

Good to see you, Michelle. Okay, so before we really dig into the question of what Democrats should do, let me get your take on the mood here in D.C., particularly among Democratic leaders. What is it like? What do you say? I don't really think I've ever seen anything quite like it, to tell you the truth, in terms of the mixture of despair and gloom and even desperation, really. You know, you felt a little bit like this as a Democrat after the 2004 election to roll the clock way back.

But after the 2004 election, there wasn't like the world's richest man coming in and trying to dismantle huge swaths of the U.S. government. So I think that the combination for Democrats that is so paralyzing is that sense of not just being despairing of what's happening, but really kind of failing about it not having any kind of coherent agreed-upon approach for how do you deal with this emergency that is taking place around us? Yeah, I mean, even going a little bit farther afield than the Democratic Party leaders, in my world, I've been talking to a bunch of people, including federal workers and academics,

and many of these folks have never experienced anything like the instability in their professional lives. I mean, when you think about it, what's the most stable professions that you're You think of, like, academia, nobody ever loses their job in academia. The federal government is supposed to be really steady. And this has just kind of taken people and left them speechless. So I feel like both of us think that the Democrats should not just be sitting back in the middle of all this, hoping that Republicans drive themselves completely into a ditch. But at the same time, I'm, like, really mindful of something that a veteran Democratic strategist once told me, which is that when your opponent is digging their own grave, you don't fight him for the shovel.

So, you know, how do we find a balance for the Democrats to go forward? What should they be doing to make progress, but at the same time, let Republicans own what they're doing? I think that there are two problems that Democrats have to confront. The first, that kind of counteract the stand back and let them destroy themselves, theory, which, by the way, I think in normal political times would be, absolutely right. You know, just do very little. They'll crash the economy and we'll win some midterm elections in two years and we'll be back in the game. I think the two problems with that are number one. I think Democrats underestimate just how profoundly loath they are right now. I mean, I say that as a

Democrat, you know, like if you are under 30, the only national Democrats you've really known are Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and then maybe 100 days of Conla Harris. And I like those people, but those people are definitely not tomorrow. And they kind of represent Washington and they represent certain ways of doing things that people think have failed. And I think Democrats would make a big mistake if they assume like,

oh, we came pretty close in this election. And therefore, it's not as profound a rebuke of us as it might be. The rebuke to Democrats is that Donald Trump is more popular today than he was eight years ago. And I do not think that's because he is some singular, I mean, he's a singular figure, but I don't think he's, you know, has that degree of depth of appeal in the country.

I think part of it is the loathing of Democrats. And then on the other side, I think that you make a mistake in thinking that these people are going to kind of go quietly into the night. You know, if there's a recession, they'll just take their electoral beating and go home. I mean, people like this don't give up power voluntarily. They really don't. And whatever that looks like, whether that's Trump trying to run for another term or whether that's just kind of total governmental capture, it could be too late for,

Democrats in four years to at least lay the predicate that they're fighting back. So I think they need to show people just what they care about. They need to totally, I think, generational change in terms of who the faces of this party are. And they need to get back out in the country where people are actually experiencing the things that Trump administration is doing and kind of reinvent themselves, not as this kind of party of governing in Washington, but once again, as kind of a movement party on behalf of primarily working people, but anybody that, frankly, that is being harmed by Trump, which is going to be a lot of people. So you, touched on something that I was talking recently with Congressman Jason Crow about the way back

for the party. And he did speak to the idea that the party has become this kind of knee-jerk defender of institutions that a majority of the country don't see as working and that you can't defend the federal government and look like kind of this change force or somebody who's even really in touch with what's going on. So it sounds like you think that. they just kind of need to not necessarily keep the government defense at arm's lengths, but that they need to change their approach to that? I mean, just like their entire stick on government. Well, yeah, I mean, and to be very specific about this, too, the Democrats, you've seen them in recent days, you know, protesting outside of USAID when it was shuttered. That shouldn't happen. And I say that

as someone who's profoundly concerned about shuttering those agencies. They should protest at a VA center in somebody's congressional district out in the country. They should be protesting where the services hit people's lives that are being removed. If people see a bunch of people in front of a government building in Washington, they don't even think about necessarily what's going on in there. But if people see the local VA's getting cut, like that is something that's tangible to them. And I think it's both the defending of the status quo

and also just this kind of sense that Democrats are entirely the party of Washington. You know, we used to laugh at scoff at Trump and his rally. I was watching that as someone between the Obama campaign. I was like, well, that kind of looked like our approach to politics and get out with big crowds and do stuff. And I think that there's a mentality not just among Democratic electives, but sometimes among kind of your more engaged Democrats, shall we say, your online Democrats, that these people are going to merge from a room in Washington with like a formula, like a set of talking points. And that's not how it works. Like you've got to get out in the country and actually do things.

I do think that there's a misconception about what the federal. government is. I do think that it's not even just people who don't pay attention to government in politics. There's this sense that all of these people are in Washington that Trump is firing, that he's letting go huge hordes just in, you know, inside the beltway, so to speak, whereas in reality, huge percentage of federal workers are in Colorado, Alabama, you know, I think it speaks to your point. They really do need to be out in the country showing where the rubber meets the road on these things because it's my sense that there's a lot of Schadenfreude in certain parts of the nation about, oh, well, it's finally Washington workers turn to feel the sting of the economic downturn.

And that's just not really what the federal government is all about. That's exactly right. I was talking to a woman for this piece who's run a bunch of movements successfully in Europe. And she's like, just make it about an issue too, right? Like you have a movement around health care and you're at VA facilities or you're at places that are being hit by the removal of Medicaid or something like that. Or you could do that, by the way, around any number of issues, too. You could do it around protecting social security. You could do it around some of the cuts to food safety, anything that people care about that hits them in

their lives. And the good thing about doing that, too, is if you're trying to build momentum in places like that, you don't need to make sure that everybody who shows up at your movement, you know, at your rally or your protest or your town hall, you don't need to quiz them on the way in. You know, Chris Murphy said this to Senator from Connecticut said to me, we ask people to agree with us on 12 things. And if you only agree with 11, you're not invited here, particularly if that extra thing is a cultural issue, an identity politics issue.

If you're making this in the country about issues that people care about in their lives, you don't need this kind of across-the-board purity tests. There could be someone who thinks they hate Democrats, but is really mad that their VA healthcare is being taken away. Invite that person in. So who do you think would be the good face of the opposition? Give me some figures going forward.

who you think have what it takes? The few I put it out there in the party right now, obviously you see Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. She has that extra thing. People are just interested in what she is saying and doing. And she's drawing big crowds with Bernie Sanders. And then I think if you look in Washington, you've got people like Chris Murphy and Brian Schatz

and Andy Kim, who I talked to for this piece, who were in the Senate, Alyssa Slokin, who they obviously put out for the response. And I look at the house that a guy like Jason Crow, you know, service record, a guy like Rokana who's trying to stir things up a bit. Then you look at governors and you've got Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan. Oh, I love me some governor.

But that's the thing. I don't think the next president is likely to be a Washington Democrat, you know. So then you look at... I'm right there with you. I am like very pro-team governor with these things. You know, and it's just a different look for the party. And part of what I think distressed people about last time is if we'd had an open primary, you know, Westmore of Maryland, Josh Shapiro, Pennsylvania, Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan.

There are plenty of pretty capable people that would have... Such fabulous choices. Middle-aged people, at least. And then the last thing I'd say is, like, be open to somebody else, too. Like, you know, somebody who's not from politics. Let's see who gets, like, some credibility and authenticity with the electorate in the next couple of years.

And I think there's a great opportunity for the party. I really do. To regenerate, you know, if there's some older generation kind of steps aside, there's going to be some energy that's building. You've already got some pretty talented people in these different places. And let's just kind of look like a different party. in two or three years. So you touched on the authenticity word, which when I was talking to Crow, I heard about this.

When I was talking to AOC about where to go with the party, authenticity came up again. I think sometimes people fret over like the words that we're using. And it's so much more than words. This is about not just talking about it. It's about being about it. And people can just smell from a mile away. if you're one of them. So with the Democrats' problems,

my sense is that, yes, you talk about issues, yes, you make clear what your core values are, but that a lot of it is that they don't know how to talk to normal people and not sound like they're running some kind of freshman seminar at some pointy-headed college. How much of this is a style question that needs to be addressed?

It's a style question that goes deeper. And I say that as someone who's a speechwriter. if you do not sound like a human, you're not going to be effective as a messenger. And there's this saying that Biden and then Harris both repeated that I don't blame this on them. This is the kind of consultant brain that the Democratic Party gets. How many times do we hear them talk about building a middle class

from the bottom up and the middle out? What the hell does that mean? You know? So the first thing is there's this kind of consultant language. It just needs to go away. That was always annoying to people. But when your opponent, Donald Trump, is clearly not on any consultant. Sultan speak. It just makes that more glaring that you seem like the typical politicians.

And then there's a second piece of this, which is Democrats have these public debates, you know, that astound me where it's like, maybe we need to go on TikTok or we need to go on the Manosphere podcast. You know what? Like, if you can do that, if you can make a cool TikTok video and whatever your thing is that allows you do that, that's great. If you can't, then please don't. Please don't go there. Like, if you can go on Joe Rogan because you, are up to speed on the conspiracy theories or you have the background in stand-up comedy or you know something about ultimate fighting, that's great. But don't go on Joe Rogan to talk about building an economy from the bottom up to the

middle out. That will make his audience hate Democrats more. And so I think what Democrats miss about authenticity is, it's not like what platform I'm on. The point is that authenticity is about like being yourself. It's not about like being what you think this demographic wants a politician to be. That suggests that they just need to. also expand their stable to include people who can do these different things. So like Crow, Pete Buttigieg, there's, you know, Carville, these guys go on conservative shows and they do a really good job.

Yeah. So if you also find people who want to talk to Joe Rogan about Ultimate Fighting or, you know, all of the Manosphere podcasters, that's who you send out. You don't, you don't send out your policy wonks to talk about that. Yeah, and look, Obama was one of the first politicians to do this kind of stuff. But you know what he did? He went on, like, ESPN to talk about basketball because he knew something about basketball. So he would look super authentic if he was having that conversation. And it's a very simple point, but it's really one that is missed.

And to Crow's point, he's right. Like, go find. If you're not reaching certain audiences, well, then go find some people that have an authentic connection to those audiences. How much of a problem is it that the party doesn't have obvious leaders, obvious faces for this. It's always a problem when you're out of power because you can't compete with the presidency. I mean, every time Trump belches or forget somebody's name, it's saturation coverage. And at this point, you know, as you know, Chuck Schumer's not really

the face of the future of the party. To what degree is it just a question of how do you elevate people above the white noise? I hear you and I get asked every day, where's Obama? Why isn't he out there. And I always said people like, okay, maybe Obama could go out and do some big rally. But he's not going to run in two years or four years. Like, we should want other people. And we're this party that... To be clear, I don't want them looking backwards. Yeah, you know, and that's thing... They need to be looking forward. I think the problem for this party is our nominees, our leaders tend to be the people have been around forever. And people are sick of people that have been around forever right now.

Like, a catastrophic mistake, like to point was putting Jerry Connolly in charge of the Oversight Committee for the Democrats in the House instead of AOC. Not because the Oversight Committee is the most important thing in the world, but just because the message it's sent, we have a carrot. This is the only Democrat in Washington who, people who don't follow politics closely are kind of interested in what she has to say, if they're under 35 and have a pulse, you know? We are on a sinking ship here, people.

And so what needs to happen is the party, through its resources, through whatever platform it has, just needs to be elevating younger people, elevating the next generation. of people and having them come forward. And then I think we have to be open to anything and everybody in this kind of emergency they were in. I think in the kind of more medium term, like at some point, I would like the Democratic Party to be attractive enough to have those people not be embarrassed to put Democrat next to their name.

It felt not to sound like Bill guy, but like in 2008, people wanted to be a Democrat, you know. And I say this in the piece, Michelle, like, I hate what Trump's done, but he destroyed his party and rebuilt it. can be done. And part of Trump's credibility with the electorate is that he broke his own party. And what voters know is that, hey, if Trump will fight his own party, he'll fight anybody. When Democrats look afraid to even fight, you know, tell Joe Biden he's too old or tell Chuck Schumer he shouldn't capitulate, well, it just makes it seem like, well, these guys are weak. They can't

even stand up to each other. How are they going to stand up for me? Now, I wanted to take a step back and talk about the international scene because I think one of the things that you touched on early is that this is not a normal political time. This is not a normal political moment. And I think in part, you know, the American electorate doesn't have any kind of context for what to do, you know, how you would even work on being the opposition in a situation like this. But you've taken this question global and you've talked to some folks who have been in countries where there was a slide toward autocracy. So what did you hear in those conversations? I heard a lot of concern that Americans don't seem to understand what's happening here and just how bad it is.

And that is evident to people around the world in the absence of pushback, the absence of protests, the absence of the kind of corporate, total capitulation to Trump, the capitulation of different sectors, now we're in academia, law firms. We've seen some capitulation from media, not the outlet we're currently speaking on. But what they say, because the point of the authoritarian playbook that Trump is running, which has been run in many countries around the world, is initially make the opposition feel so demoralized that they don't push back. But then by the time that they do push back, they can't. Because there's been a sufficient capture and intimidation of civil society and of the private sector and the capture of the instruments of government.

And we're in the phase that people are watching from the outside, where, like, people still could push back, but they're not. And capitulation is not a strategy. That if, for every law firm in university that gives Trump a pound of flush, like he's going to come back for more, not just from them or from others. Always. Yeah, always. And this is obvious by, but, like, it's somehow lost on people to some extent.

And also to see what this is setting up. But that was the main message is that you need to shake off the kind of self-censorship that takes hold in these circumstances and shake off the waiting for somebody else to charge up the hill. and start coalition building and doing things right away. Well, that I wanted to, but before we go, I wanted to read a comment that somebody had sent in, which it's from Jonathan, and he notes, quote,

it's exceedingly frustrating to hear plans and strategies for the regaining of political power by the Democratic Party. Why? Because we're in the middle of a takeover of our government by a lawless and violent faction, discussing ways in which this can be successfully opposed by a properly considered political strategy is simply fatuous. In fact, many supporters of that faction are muddying the waters by suggesting democratic political strategies, but these are distractions. So I think if I'm reading Jonathan correctly, he feels like extraordinary measures are called for.

We're an extraordinary time, and he wants to see something transformational. And what can the Democratic Party do to channel that kind of rage where it just feels like the moment is so dire? So I totally agree with Jonathan. And he can feel free to lump me in with the political strategists. But my point is essentially Democrats love to, for instance, sit around and be like, what's the policy agenda that will win back America? Nobody cares.

Like, and there's great ideas out there. and the abundance agenda and all the rest of it. But nobody is going to read that right now. That's a great idea for Democrats if they actually win back power or maybe if they're in power now. But where Jonathan's right is like, we're in quickstand and we're going underneath

and we're sitting here debating policy ideas for some hypothetical future when we're in charge or we're debating what podcasts are on. To me, you just need to show energy and whether it's an moral outrage or determination. My point in the piece is, don't wait for a Democrat to stay even Washington. people just need to get in the streets or businesses need to start bending together.

Institutions need to stop capitulating. And the way you get out of things like that is you grab one another's hand. And I think what the Democrats need to do is like flood the zone out in the country. Like just start doing things. It's actually not a strategy. Well, it is a strategy in the sense of it's like stop doing what you're currently doing in Washington and just go out and essentially collectively protest. I don't think Bernie and they always checked with Chuck Schumer and Hakeemperies about whether they could go do some rallies. They just wouldn't did them because that's what they're good at. And that's what

people need to do more. Okay. Skip the consultants and poll testing. Get up. Get out there. And with that call to the ramparts, Ben, thank you so much for joining me. Always great talking to Michelle. If you like this show, follow it on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts. This show is produced by Derek Arthur, Sophia Alvarez Boyd, Vichaka, Feebigh, Christina Samuelski and Jillian Weinberger. It's edited by Kari Pitkin, Alison Bruzek, and Annie Rose Strasser. Engineering, mixing, and original music

by Isaac Jones, Sonia Herrero, Pat McCusker, Carol Saburo, and Afim Shapiro. Additional music by Amin Sohota. The fact check team is Kate Sinclair, Mary Marge Locker, and Michelle Harris. Audience Strategy by Shannon Busta, Christina Samuiluski, and Adrian Rivera. The executive producer of Times Opinion

audio is Annie Rose Dresser.