March 3, 2025 - 1:00pm
Donald Trump’s heated confrontation with Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House on Friday has triggered a conspicuous lack of outrage from an increasingly hesitant Democratic Party. This uncharacteristic restraint speaks volumes about a fundamental recalibration taking place within American liberalism, as the appetite for Ukraine support wanes.
Recent polling tells the story plainly enough. A Quinnipiac survey from last week shows that the percentage of Americans who believe the US is doing “too much” to help Ukraine has skyrocketed from 7% to 41% (and to 62% among Republicans). Trust in Zelensky — a formerly-revered “secular saint” — has plummeted from 72% to under 48%. The Democrats, long champions of the Ukrainian cause, appear to have recognised a losing battle when they see one.
A handful of strident voices, including Bernie Sanders and Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, did speak out. “The White House has become an arm of the Kremlin,” Murphy declared on CNN’s State of the Union yesterday, insisting that Trump’s team is “pretending as if Ukraine started this war” while overlooking that the Democrats said the same things during the failed Russiagate investigation. And when Hillary Clinton criticised Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s order to the US Cyber Command to stand down from all operations directed at Russia, he replied with a meme of her laughing alongside Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The exchange effectively underscored how these protestations now sound hollow and disconnected from public sentiment.
This strategic retreat isn’t limited to Ukraine policy. Amid record drops in approval for Congressional Democrats’ performance, the party’s leadership has grown similarly quiet on transgender protections in sports, which polling has repeatedly shown to be exceedingly unpopular. It has also begun walking back some messaging on DEI programmes and affirmative action in school admissions, issues which are also consistently opposed by majorities. The party appears to be picking its battles more judiciously, recognising that certain culture war flashpoints have become political quicksand.
So much was evident at a gathering of prominent Democratic moderates last month. The resulting document, a five-page blueprint obtained by Politico, reads like a direct repudiation of the party’s trajectory over the last decade. Among its recommendations are “embrace patriotism, community, and traditional American imagery”; “be pro-capitalism in a smart way”; “ban far-left candidate questionnaires”; and “push back against far-Left staffers and groups”. Perhaps most telling is “move away from the dominance of small-dollar donors whose preferences may not align with the broader electorate”. The message couldn’t be clearer: the progressive wing that dominated the party during Trump’s first term has lost its primacy.
While foreign policy was not mentioned in the blueprint, the last few days have shown that Democrats are struggling to find the right line on this too. The Third Way moderates’ prescription to “move away from the dominance of small-dollar donors” and “push back against far-left staffers” may help realign the party domestically, but offers precious little guidance on responding to Trump’s dramatic reorientation of American foreign policy. As Trump pressures Ukraine in the direction of uncomfortable concessions to Russia, Democratic leaders such as Chuck Schumer are nowhere to be found.
This vacuum of opposition speaks to a deeper crisis of confidence within the party: having spent years telling jokes about “pee tapes” and portraying Trump as Putin’s puppet, Democrats now find themselves unable to counter his moves on the world stage. The party’s inability to articulate a compelling alternative vision for America’s evolving role in the world may prove as damaging to its electoral prospects as its previous missteps on domestic issues.
Oliver Bateman is a historian and journalist based in Pittsburgh. He blogs, vlogs, and podcasts at his Substack, Oliver Bateman Does the Work
MoustacheClubUS
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.
SubscribeUnherd editorial team please take note.
What? If you don’t get your way, you’ll thkweam and thkweam until you’re sick
Another troll. What’s with you all?
I’m making a serious point. If the world moves collectively to the Right then Unherd (stupid name), if it doesn’t change, will stand out even more obviously as a tool of the Left.
And fewer Far Left staffers in Unherd please. Every Leftist article in Unherd and they are legion is met with 95% disagreement BTL.
How about trying out some contributors from the Right?
Oh FFS get off it already. Just don’t read the stuff you don’t like if it bothers you so much.
I’m still waiting for an article I like.
Then perhaps you’re in the wrong place .
I don’t like the articles in the Guardian so I don’t go there (let alone pay to subscribe.)
I’m sure there are many more Substacks where you would feel at home.
How curious it is to see that your comment currently has 11 upvotes and 25 downvotes. Of the readers who care to express their opinion, over twice as many actually want leftist journalism? What are they all doing at Unherd? Surely the Guardian or the Independent are there to cater for them?
It’s not so much a matter of “leftist articles” (I would say), but NPC journalism that merely rehearses establishment talking points. The fact that this kind of writing is served up to UhHerd subscribers so often, with no apparent reaction to hostile comments and the cancellation of subscriptions suggests that UnHerd is a kind of “limited hangout operation” (not quite the right term, and a little too paranoid), with adequate funding outside of subscriptions.
I have no problem at all with occasional article by eccentric leftists, like Terry Eagleton. You can shake your head at his obtuse leftism, you can nod your head at the surprise moments of agreement, but you know that he’s thinking things through for himself, rightly or wrongly – he’s no NPC.
Maybe it’s because they are also glad that this clash has turbocharged Europe’s defence efforts and they don’t want to give any impression whatsoever that Europe could fall back on the US again when the next Democrat administration comes around. Biden’s election had the effect of Europe simply falling back into the narratives of a “normal” that stopped existing years ago, i.e. the US will carry on funding our defence until forever.
Silence is honestly the better option here, just sit back, let stuff play out and allow the Republicans to sort out your problems for you without losing any political capital.
Secondly, I think perhaps a few Dems are secretly feeling vindicated about Zelenskyy behaving so badly in public. Not only was there “that” NBC report about Biden’s telephone spat with him in 2022 – I’ve also found reports that Ben Wallace wasn’t very happy with Zelenskyy’s attitude: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/12/uk-defence-secretary-ben-wallace-suggests-ukraine-could-say-thank-you. Not to mention Andriy Melnyk, Ukraine’s ambassador to Germany having to be recalled after openly insulting Scholz and generally behaving in a way which did not curry favour with the locals (https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/melnyk-mochte-sich-zum-abschied-bei-scholz-entschuldigen-8547823.html)
Silence is again the winning strategy here: Dems can carry on criticising Trump for his behaviour while also quietly washing their hands of having to deal with the Ukrainians.
These would be smart and strategic ways of behaving. Maybe I’m being a bit too optimistic thinking that the crazy Dems are capable of this right now.
Yes. Funny how that story – from NBC no less – was conveniently raised.
Democrat and Republican Senators met with Zelensky immediately before he met with Trump. Some encouraged him to reject Trump’s offer, and that he had their support.
Perhaps Zelensky has now learned that he should heavily discount Senators’ advice and gossip seeing that they often have their own (usually internal to the US) interests that are very different from sensitive negotiations with the President of the United States.
The President speaks for America. Senators speak for their individual states and themselves, and they like to pretend they have more power than they really do.
Now that Zelensky has extracted a needless political price from Trump when Trump was doing the right thing for the US, Europe and Ukraine with the mineral deal, I expect that Trump will find a way repay Zelensky in kind as a message:
If one is dealing with the US as a whole, deal with the President and his authorized representatives. Anyone else is suspect and will get one into serious trouble.
The question arises, what is a Democrat ? I just see a mob with no focus and no bottle. They are still unelectable.
Unherd could take a leaf out of the Democrat playback and fire all their Far Left Feminist writers. They are all dinosaurs now.
Stooge
Another troll. What do you want?
You’re the troll, endlessly spamming articles. You offer nothing, like I said a stooge. You are no different from Champagne Socialist, maybe you’re that account as well. They always say empty vessels make the most noise.
I give my opinion on the articles. That’s what the comments section is for.
Complaining (constantly) that UnHerd isn’t right wing enough for you isn’t an argument.
I don’t remember ever reading a comment of yours. Presumably you have nothing to say, or you just have a very limited vocabulary.
I do have things to say.
Yes, garbage.
Are you making a point about this article, RL, or just bellyaching about Unherd in general? 😉
Both.
Rubbish.
Trump is breaking from traditional political norms, playing a high-stakes game that appears chaotic but follows a larger strategy.
He is reshaping global alignments—undercutting U.S. arms sales in Ukraine and Mexico while securing defense profits through unconditional support for Israel. His economic maneuvers against China lack real impact, and he is losing allies in Europe, Mexico (Making the cartel terrorism will stop arm sales from US under sanctions), and Canada. Meanwhile, he edges toward a Russian alliance, though Russia’s real strategic depth and security lies with its borders China, (maritime) Iran, and North Korea.
Culturally, he is seizing control of institutions like the White House press corps and the Kennedy Center, with Hollywood reflecting this ideological shift by rewarding a Russian themed movie. Domestically, dismantling DEI and affirmative action weakens a key Democratic-aligned voting bloc—mainly white women in leadership—while avoiding direct backlash from racial minorities (they never truly benefited it was mainly to control opposition).
The Democrats are silent, not out of fear, but calculation. They believe Trump is consolidating executive power for them, assuming they will inherit a stronger presidency. But this is a miscalculation. The fundamental power structure is shifting—capitalists and government are merging, erasing the pretense of separation. In the West, business has always ruled governance, but now it’s becoming explicit.
The only scenario in which Democrats turn against Trump is if he loses capitalist backing—an unlikely outcome so far. They are waiting for their turn, but the system they hope to control may no longer exist. If the capitalist class openly declares itself as the ruling force, the real battle will be between them and the population.
Russia has undergone similar shifts in 1917, 1947, and the 1990s. While Trump does not yet show signs of forcing capitalists under state control to realign power with the people (what may look like Putin style of governing), a severe economic crisis could push events in that direction. For now, the trajectory remains uncertain, but the stakes are historic.
In short, the demos do not have the support of the capitalists today; hence, the silence. It is shaping one party country but who will win: A real means of production (capitalist) vs the labor while the governance is marginalized! If I was a democratic today, I would push for nationalism hard to force Trump hands to show his agenda because the capitalist do not like nationalism aka population. I am not a nice person! LOL
Or Trump is just a pragmatist that’s secured the Center and every time Dems screech about some common sense thing he does, they lose more support.
Which type of tea? I prefer chamomile, green and black tea blend?
You said it first.
Oh please. Dems like Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and others met with Z-man before his White House visit with an eye on undermining the agreement. They don’t care how many Ukrainians die. The rest are resorting to the usual “pro Putin” talking points.
Isn’t it the big-dollar donors who are the problem?
I was wondering this myself. Maybe a Freudian slip by the author.
I wonder whether it’s the small donors who are the most doctrinaire. It may be that the democrats depend for a small but significant part of their money from small fanatical single-issue donors. It may be an example of Pareto: 20% are driving the remaining 80%.
Or ignorance.
Chuck Schumer’s tweet immediately after the Zelensky meeting at the White House: “Trump and Vance are doing Putin’s dirty work. Senate Democrats will never stop fighting for freedom and democracy.”
Those of us with longer memories recall Obama’s meager response to Putin’s annexation of Crimea, a violation of borders and the liberal order that elicited none of the moral outrage from Democrats we now hear. Now that the Ukrainian war has exhausted all the promises to crush Putin with sanctions, advanced weapons, and Ukrainian offensives, we are left with two options: Trump’s dramatic effort to negotiate an end versus the prospect of continuing with the bloody and geopolitically dangerous status quo. If there is a third cogent option, I’ve yet to hear it.
When a party loses its way as badly as the Democrats, they could be out of power for a generation, unless Trump screws things up with tariffs.