Would-be DNC bosses Ben Wikler and Ken Martin lean toward moderate pragmatism. Credit: UnHerd

It wasnât long ago that the Democratic Party gloated about its deep bench of rising stars. Between the blue wave of the 2018 midterms and Kamala Harrisâs selection as the partyâs 2024 presidential nominee, ardent Democrats were confident that their party had the youth, diversity, talent, and policy chops to build a majority coalition. âDare We Dream of the End of the GOPâ, asked a New York Times headline, apparently in earnest.
Now the race for the next leader of the Democratic National Committee, to be elected on 1 February, is an opportunity to confront the party’s utter collapse in Middle America and chart a new course. Whether the Democrats will seize the chance turns on the resolve of the winner to buck the partyâs subservience to donors and allocate resources to fresh candidates in former swing states.
The two most prominent contenders â Wisconsin party chairman Ben Wikler and Minnesota chairman Ken Martin â are workhorses adept at the art of coalition management. As Midwestern white guys, Martin and Wikler could help the party stanch the haemorrhage of Democratic support among their own demographic. But while they have sounded populist notes, their appetite for a shake-up has yet to be tested.
The backdrop is bleak. Progressives are demoralised over The Squadâs diminished size. Red-state Democrats are reeling from the loss of Sens. Sherrod Brown, Jon Tester, and Bob Casey. And establishment liberals such as Chuck Schumer have rationalised defeat by explaining that workers âdidnât realiseâ how much Democrats âcare for themâ. Party activists canât spot any would-be saviours in the distant horizon.
The job of the next DNC chairperson wonât be easy or glamorous. He or she will face the daunting task of rebuilding the Democratic coalition in nearly every part of America. Not only are Democrats on a backfoot in the Rust Belt and former Sun Belt strongholds like Florida, they must reckon with Trumpâs surprising inroads among working-class voters and people of colour in deep-blue areas.
To be effective, the DNC leader will have to intervene forcefully in big debates over ideology and strategy. Grassroots activists, Left-wing intellectuals, and labour leaders such as Shawn Fain of the United Autoworkers are urging a showdown with the donor class and corporate power to compete with Trumpâs GOP. Others who are close to the party elite are proposing a âcommon-senseâ approach to economics, which some suspect is code for a Wall Street-friendly tack.
As the DNCâs 448 members gear up to vote, itâs far from certain that the victor will have a mandate to court the working-class voters who have defected to Trump since 2016. Still, there are hopes for serious change following the hapless tenure of Jaime Harrison, a friend of elite lobbyists who staunchly defended the partyâs embrace of identity politics after critics blamed it for Novemberâs humbling results.
At first glance, Martin and Wikler, the two frontrunners, seem well-positioned to oversee a âresetâ. Each boasts of having overhauled his respective state party. Each enjoys the backing of labour unions, grassroots organisations, and reform-minded establishment figures. And both have bluntly stated that the party lost the working class this past election.
The basic assumption is that either of these two middle-aged white men from the Upper Midwest is suited to reconnecting the party with Gen-X and Millennial men without a college education â a demographic group that extended its shift to the right in November. A victory by either Martin or Wikler, the thinking goes, would install a competent leader bent on revamping the partyâs message and cultivating down-ballot insurgents in states that have swung to the GOP since the Obama era.
Yet there are reasons to doubt the Democrats will be so easily led out of their morass. Most centrally, there is no obvious basis for a truce between the partyâs Left flank and its more centrist members. Many progressives are unwilling or afraid to discipline âthe Groupsâ â the professional advocacy organisations that are widely seen as responsible for the partyâs unpopular and outrĂ© positions on race, immigration, gender, sexuality, drugs, and criminal justice. This reputation has overshadowed progressivesâ support for a strong welfare state, consumer protection, and workersâ rights, limiting their appeal among workers who lean Right or simply hold mainstream views on cultural questions.
The âmoderatesâ, meanwhile, comprise two factions that generally disagree on economic priorities: Rust Belt populists who shrink from the excesses of the âwokeâ Left, and neoliberals who once exploited identity politics but are now willing to muzzle âthe Groupsâ if that means regaining control of the party.
Although both moderate factions have recently stressed the importance of tackling high prices, they are divided on tariffs, corporate oversight, and the need for long-term re-industrialisation. Team Bidenâs gamble on industrial policy failed to stir the electorate, leaving populists who supported such efforts without a clear framework to move forward. And they diverge from progressives on key questions such as border security, the pace of the green transition, and the economic threat posed by China. This impasse has emboldened neoliberals backed by major donors to discourage a push toward populist economics.
Bridging these divides while preventing a return to neoliberal orthodoxy will require clearheaded leadership. An effective DNC leader must bend progressives and neoliberals on the issues where they are most vulnerable. Given Martinâs and Wiklerâs Midwestern backgrounds, it is reasonable to wager that both would favour the pragmatic populists. Neither contender, however, seems terribly inclined to force hard choices on the partyâs dominant factions.
Take Wikler, whom pundits have depicted as more likely to excite the progressive base and who just garnered the endorsements of seven Democratic governors. While some high-profile commentators see him as bolder than Martin, he has embraced the same naked appeals to identity politics that have backed his party into a corner. Wikler has also been credited with ânationalisingâ elections in Wisconsin to make them more competitive for Democrats. This involves attracting major media to lesser-known contests and mobilising party activists behind local candidates whose election could have a decisive impact on Democratic priorities.
In the right context, this strategy can generate momentum and pool resources for progressive challengers to Republican incumbents. But as disastrous races elsewhere have demonstrated, it can also exacerbate perceptions in places typically ignored by Democrats that the party elite is only interested in flashy contests that fill up campaign war chests.
Martin, meanwhile, may be too mild-mannered to forge meaningful compromises. A leader possessing sangfroid still must be able to throw a punch, particularly in the age of Trump. Avoiding gaffes that reinforce perceptions that Democrats are as much in the pocket of Wall Street as the GOP is also crucial. In a recent candidate forum, Martin appeared to astound himself when he blurted that Democrats will take money from âgood billionaires … who share our values,â but not from âthose bad billionairesâ. Oops.Â
Still, there is some evidence he has more of an independent streak than Wikler. Martin has focused on strengthening the autonomy of local party branches and irritated the elite by establishing a group of state leaders that is separate from the DNC. For the sake of rebuilding local trust, such a strategy might be worth the price of angering consultants and grandees from the Northeast and California. Democrats are in desperate need of someone willing to clean house and keep the liberal establishment at armâs length.
Whoever prevails, however, must do more than hone a new image. For Democrats to have any hope of winning back the working class, they need to recall the policies but also the party vision that gave succour to struggling Americans from their partyâs founding in the Jacksonian era to the New Deal and the Great Society.
Egalitarianism, the vitality of a free society, and a belief that active government could spur national progress: these were the ideas that the Democratic giants of the past masterfully combined in their appeals to ordinary people. Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman could denounce injustice in plain language while arousing the spirit of optimism once considered inherent to the American experience.
In more practical terms, that meant adapting the original progressive tradition of the Midwest, predicated on reining in monopolies and forging alliances between workers, small businesses, and farmers. For decades, this approach to coalition-building was embraced by Left-leaning Democrats, from populists like Oklahomaâs Fred Harris to the Rev. Jesse Jackson. It flourished until the end of last century, when Bill Clintonâs commitment to globalisation sundered his partyâs ties with small towns and fading industrial regions.
Biden, to his credit, did draw on this older progressive tradition through his administrationâs antitrust policies. Despite stark obstacles in the heartland, rallying the party once more to the anti-monopoly banner is probably the best way to revive its fortunes. The alternative is to court Americaâs wealthy suburbs â an approach that would close the door on New Deal liberalism for good and that may not even be worth the candle, judging by Harrisâs campaign.
Yet with the exception of Howard Dean, a former presidential candidate who pursued a 50-state strategy in the mid-aughts, all of the partyâs recent leaders have been careerists beholden to the donor class. This has deepened the sense among disenchanted activists that the obstacles to major reform also run through the DNC. To rebuild the Democratic coalition, the DNC will have do more than serve as the gatekeeper of critical campaign funds.
The overarching task of the next four to eight years, then, is to build the bridge to a new era that Biden himself couldnât deliver. That demands identifying future leaders who speak to the common interests of American workers, while encouraging stances that serve Americaâs long-term security.
It also means resisting pressure to cede control of the partyâs direction to powerful presidential aspirants. The 2028 field is already anticipated to feature ultra-wealthy players such as Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, and celebrity tycoons like Mark Cuban. A party leader intent on protecting democracy from oligarchy would do well to act as Martin has and defy efforts to centralise power in patronage networks that resemble Trumpâs.
No matter how ambitious the next DNC leader turns out to be, stoking an anti-donor insurgency wonât come naturally. Democrats in the Trump era have become the party of institutions â so much so that they canât see the powerful interests that have suffocated reform in the cradle. But if the party has a soul, its salvation begins with a revolution against its own monopolists. A venerable tradition calls out to those willing to take up the gauntlet.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAll that talent and they couldn’t find a suitable replacement for a befuddled pensioner.
DEMs reject merit. Dictatorship is rule of mediocrity. Promoting an already enfeebled Biden, then cramming an un-primaried Harris are symptoms of top down power grab.
Yes, America needs more democrat aparatchiks. Tweedle-dum & Tweddle-dumber neck and neck to put the peddle to the metal and steer for the gap between guard rails.
“The belief that active government can spur National Progress.” See there is your problem. “Active Government” is not a hallmark of a free society. If the government has to constantly tinker with the economy than it has to either A) Coerce the economic producers (businesses) to fulfill the government aims instead of their bottom line or B) The government has carve out regulation exemptions for compliant businesses.
That’s how you create a collusive corporate censorship environment that controls narratives. There’s no way Democrats can cede further loss of narrative control so they can’t break away from the wealthy donor class or mainstream media.
A competent, responsive government is all people want. Not one that acts like the DMV or one that polices pronouns. Keep streets safe, put out the fires, fix the roads, bridges and schools. But please stop with the nauseating, performative moralizing on every issue. Nobody is buying it.
The donor class will break away from the Democrats.
The Democrats should give up. America will become a one party state with a permanent MAGA majority.
“Can middle-aged white guys save the Dems?”
Isn’t that rather like asking can Blacks save the KKK
The title of the article itself betrays the problem with Democrats and their thinking even now. There aren’t citizens and people with individual desires, hopes, dreams and loves, everyone is just part of a homogeneous blob of identity group X, Y, or Z and there is no consideration for what is best for the people just a decision of which faction to make naked appeals to in order to remain in power.
The issue in the U.S. is no longer about Democrats or Republicansâitâs a foundational problem. Voting has lost its meaning in the digital age (anyone can rig it and we will never know). A government cannot effectively run a country if it does not control its own military. If private businessmen own military equipment, they ultimately control the nation. This is a fundamental principle.
Both political parties operate under the same donor system; corporations shift their support between them based on convenience. The real discussion should be about foundational governance, not partisan politics. Private property as a model for national governance is no longer viable in the age of technology. Profit-driven interests prioritize financial bottom lines over national stability. This is the real problemâeconomic power dictating governance rather than public institutions to benefit its people.
The article does shine a light on the problem that the Democrats face, but not in the manner that the author intended.
The problem is that the Democrats are doing what they always do, and that is connive to convince enough identity groups that they care about them in order to take power.
Their interest is strictly in taking power and they have no other interest. They believe in very little that the people of the USA believe in and simply try to convince people otherwise. The actual coalition of the Democrats is Marxists, self interested grifters, and left field social misfits.Everything else is just theatrics that they employ in the effort to convince people otherwise.
The bottom line is that other than Marxist revolution they have no real platform.
I think the Democrats’ Wall Street backers will find it strange that Marxist revolution is the Democrats’ only real platform. The DEI programmes came out of Blackrock, hardly a Marxist organisation even if like the Marxists Blackrock wants to own everything.
This generally useful overview of the Democratic Party’s position omits an important fact about its big donors: that, on cultural issues, they’re well to the left of the median Democratic voter and farther left still than the median American voter. The Pritzker family is a prominent example.
That makes it all the more important for party leaders to confront the donors, while making it more complicated as long as the leaders wish to appease their hard-progressive wing.
The Family Property: Out of the Looking-Glass
The big donors are far to the left on cultural issues, so that they can be far to the right on economic issues.
The big money will swing back behind the Republicans. The Democrats will then be able to hold fair elections for the Presidential nomination. Barring Obama’s shoe-in in 2012 as sitting President, all Democrat races for the nomination have been fixed since 2004.
“… middle-aged white guys.”
You media people are too obsessed with ageism, misandry and race. Boring!
Remember the Biden hires and how many of them checked identity boxes over basic competency?
Fast forward to the DNC selection process and Jonathan C asked for a show of hands agreeing that systemic racism and misogyny led to Kamala Harris defeat. Everyone raised their hand. https://x.com/daveweigel/status/1885146391292596569
So long as the Dems persist in slicing and dicing Americans- placing us all on their stupid hierarchy of oppression they will continue to lose, LOSE, LOSE! And I will dance on their grave.