The Democratic Establishment Is a Dead Man Walking

Hakeem Jeffries thinks the path back to power for Democrats is focusing on “kitchen table issues,” waiting for Trump to self-destruct, and avoiding challenging Trump on his increasing constitutional violations in immigration enforcement, the deployment of military to cities. These are “distractions” and “losing issues.” It’s causing a revolt in the base.

Jeffries’ approach to politics seems to rest on the assumption that MAGA will flame out, and voters will come crawling back to the 2015 technocratic order. Which is, quite frankly, insane.

Less than 48 hours after Trump’s inauguration, Jeffries held a closed-door meeting with House Democrats to issue a warning: The new administration was going to “flood the zone,” and Democrats couldn’t afford to chase every single outrage—or nothing was going to sink in for the American people. Focus on cost of living, he told them. Border security. Community safety. Don’t get distracted by the noise.

The “noise” he’s referring to: Federal agents conducting warrantless mass detentions of American citizens. ICE announced for Super Bowl to intimidate Latino cultural celebration. Stephen Miller calling judicial review “insurrection.” Military operations over civilian infrastructure against state objections. The systematic dismantling of constitutional constraints on executive power.

All of it—noise. Distractions. Losing issues that don’t poll well with swing voters.

Adam Schiff, who built his entire first-term Trump resistance on constitutional defense, now agrees. “I think we have to pick our fights and not chase after every crazy squirrel,” he said. “The renaming of the Gulf of Mexico and other absurdities like that we just let go.”

Notice what gets lumped together: Silly culture war provocations (Gulf naming) and constitutional violations (everything else). They’ll fight “mass deportations that are going to raise food prices” and “trade wars that are going to raise costs”—but only to the extent they affect grocery prices. Not because warrantless detentions violate the Fourth Amendment. Not because using ICE as cultural enforcement is authoritarian. Only when it has measurable economic impact that polls well.

This is the Democratic establishment’s plan for 2026: Read the focus groups. Workshop the talking points. Stay disciplined on kitchen-table messaging. Wait for Trump to overreach so badly that voters have no choice but to return Democrats to power.

It’s not going to work. And somewhere deep down, they know it. But they’re trapped in a framework that prevents them from doing what would actually work—because doing it would destroy the arrangements keeping them in power.

The Dead Framework Walking

Here’s what the establishment learned from 2024: “Defending democracy” didn’t win. Economic issues polled better. Therefore: focus on economics, ignore constitutional violations, wait for Trump to self-destruct.

This is management thinking in pure form. Find what polls well. Optimize messaging around it. Avoid what tests poorly. Minimize risk. Trust that competent execution of focus-grouped strategy will eventually be rewarded.

There’s just one problem: This is the exact framework that lost in 2016, lost the popular vote in 2024, and has been losing ground for a decade while producing increasingly sophisticated explanations for why it keeps losing.

The framework is dead. It died somewhere between 2008’s financial crisis response that bailed out banks while abandoning homeowners, and 2016’s shocking discovery that working people would rather vote for a demagogue than for another round of expert management.

But the people operating within the framework can’t see it’s dead. Because seeing it would require acknowledging that their entire approach—their careers, their positions, their comfortable arrangements—has been fundamentally wrong.

So they keep optimizing. Better polling. More disciplined messaging. Smarter candidate recruitment. All of it variations on the same dead framework: Treat politics as technical problem requiring expert management rather than as power struggle requiring democratic combat.

The result: Jeffries telling Democrats to ignore constitutional violations because they don’t poll well. Schiff saying mass deportations only matter if they raise food prices. Brian Schatz promising “we are going to talk every day and every week about what a rip-off this whole enterprise is”—while depending on the people doing the ripping to fund the talking.

This is what dead frameworks produce: increasingly sophisticated management of decline, wrapped in the language of strategy, executed by people too invested in the framework to admit it stopped working years ago.

What They’re Actually Afraid Of

Let’s be precise about what “tune out the noise” actually means.

The Democratic establishment raises money from concentrated wealth. Real estate interests. Financial sector. Corporate monopolies. Tech oligarchs. Wealthy homeowners. Private equity. Venture capital. These aren’t cartoon villains—they’re often people with progressive social views who donate to Democrats while benefiting enormously from current economic arrangements.

To actually fight Trump’s authoritarianism would require naming what’s happening: Concentrated economic power has captured democratic government. When wealth concentrates to the degree it has, when oligarchs can buy political influence, when corporate monopolies face no countervailing force—democracy becomes fiction. The constitutional framework exists but no longer constrains the powerful.

This isn’t socialism. It’s the founding insight of American republicanism: concentrated power of any kind—governmental or economic—threatens self-governance. The Founders feared monarchy and aristocracy not because they hated rich people, but because concentrations of power—whether in a king’s hands or in hereditary wealth—make democratic self-governance impossible.

FDR called this “economic royalism” and fought it as a threat to the republic itself. Not because he wanted to abolish private property or market economics, but because when economic power concentrates sufficiently, it purchases political power. And when political power can be purchased, you no longer have democracy—you have oligarchy with democratic aesthetics.

Fighting this requires using democratic power to break concentrations that threaten democracy itself. Antitrust enforcement. Labor power as counterweight to capital. Progressive taxation preventing dynastic wealth. Housing policy that serves people who work rather than people who own. Financial regulation preventing extraction. Not because markets are evil, but because unconstrained economic power destroys the very framework that makes legitimate markets possible.

But doing this would alienate the donors funding Democratic campaigns. The real estate developer who’s given $50,000 to the DSCC stops when you propose policies that serve renters over owners. The financial services executive who hosts fundraisers stops when you talk about regulating extraction. The tech CEO reconsiders when you propose serious antitrust enforcement.

So Jeffries has a choice: Fight concentrated economic power and lose the funding. Or keep the funding and manage decline.

He’s choosing managed decline. Not because he’s stupid or evil, but because his institutional position depends on maintaining relationships with concentrated wealth. The DSCC infrastructure, the campaign funding, the think tank fellowships, the consultant networks—all of it funded by people who would stop funding if Democrats actually threatened their power.

“Tune out the noise” means: Don’t make us choose between defending constitutional principles and maintaining donor relationships. Don’t make us fight power when we’ve built careers managing it. Don’t make us risk comfortable positions by actually threatening the people whose wealth threatens democracy itself.

This is sophisticated cowardice. Fear dressed as strategy. Management dressed as leadership. The dead framework shambling forward because the people operating it can’t imagine an alternative that doesn’t destroy their positions within it.

The Focus Group Fallacy

The establishment treats focus groups as if they reveal truth about what voters want. But focus groups don’t reveal truth—they measure reaction to what already exists.

When you ask focus groups “Do you care more about grocery prices or constitutional violations?” you’re measuring reaction to the Democrats they’ve experienced. And the Democrats they’ve experienced defend democracy through careful statements while doing nothing about the economic concentrations that captured it.

So they answer: grocery prices. Because constitutional defense without fighting economic royalism feels like elite concern while working people struggle.

But here’s what focus groups can’t do: They can’t tell you whether voters would follow a leader who actually offers something different. They can’t measure response to vision that’s never been articulated. They can’t reveal whether people would rally behind someone willing to fight concentrated power instead of managing it.

FDR didn’t focus-group the New Deal. He had a vision—that republican self-governance required fighting concentrated economic power—and he sold it. He named his enemies: “economic royalists” who treated democracy as obstacle to their dominance. He welcomed their hatred. He built the broadest coalition in American history not by finding the optimal position between competing interests, but by fighting for the proposition that democracy cannot survive when oligarchs can purchase government.

This wasn’t socialism. This was liberalism defending itself against the concentrations of power that threaten it. This was republicanism recognizing that self-governance requires preventing any faction—governmental or economic—from accumulating enough power to dominate everyone else.

The focus groups would have told him it was too divisive. Too risky. That attacking concentrated wealth would alienate donors and moderate voters. That he should soften the message, seek consensus, avoid making enemies.

He did the opposite. And won four terms.

The establishment can’t learn from this because learning from it would require something they’ve eliminated from their approach: vision. Not “vision” as marketing slogan or aspirational rhetoric, but actual conviction about what republican self-governance requires and willingness to fight for it regardless of what polls say.

Jeffries doesn’t have vision. He has focus groups telling him what voters say they want based on the options they’ve been given. Schumer doesn’t have vision. He has consultants optimizing candidate selection based on name recognition and fundraising potential. The establishment doesn’t lead—it manages. It doesn’t build coalitions through vision—it optimizes them through data analysis.

When Schatz promises “we are going to talk every day and every week about what a rip-off this whole enterprise is,” that’s not vision—it’s messaging strategy. The difference: Vision would require actually fighting the concentrated power doing the ripping, risking donor relationships, threatening the funding infrastructure. Messaging strategy means talking about fighting while depending on the concentrated wealth you’re supposedly fighting to fund the talking.

FDR had vision and fought for it. The Democratic establishment has focus groups and manages based on them. One built transformative coalition by defending republicanism against economic royalism. The other produces sophisticated explanations for managed decline.

You cannot focus-group your way to vision. You cannot optimize your way to leadership. You cannot workshop talking points that substitute for actual willingness to fight concentrated power. Either you have conviction about what republican self-governance requires and courage to defend it—or you read polls, follow data, manage decline, and wonder why voters keep choosing demagogues over managers.

The Structural Trap

Here’s the part nobody wants to say explicitly: The Democratic establishment cannot take the path that would win without destroying the funding infrastructure keeping them in power.

Fighting concentrated wealth means threatening the people providing the concentrated wealth funding campaigns. Not just individual donors—entire networks. Real estate developers and financial executives and tech oligarchs and the consulting firms they fund and the super PACs they support and the think tanks they endow.

This isn’t hypothetical. It’s why Bernie Sanders built small-donor operation outside party infrastructure. It’s why Elizabeth Warren’s fundraising struggled when she attacked private equity. It’s why any Democrat proposing serious challenges to concentrated power gets marginalized by establishment figures who suddenly discover they’re “unelectable.”

The gatekeeping that political observers defend exists partly to ensure candidates don’t threaten donor interests. Not through explicit conspiracy—through structural incentives so obvious nobody needs to state them.

When the DSCC recruits a 77-year-old governor for Maine Senate over a 40-year-old oyster farmer with grassroots energy and working-class credentials—that’s not about electability analysis. That’s about funding compatibility. The governor can raise from established networks. The oyster farmer represents threat if his model spreads to candidates who might actually fight concentrated interests.

When Jeffries tells Democrats to ignore constitutional violations and focus on kitchen-table issues—that’s not strategic analysis. That’s recognition that defending constitutional principles against oligarchic capture would require fighting oligarchs. And fighting oligarchs would destroy the funding model.

When Schatz promises to talk “every day and every week about what a rip-off this whole enterprise is”—while depending on the people doing the ripping to fund the talking—that’s not hypocrisy. That’s structural impossibility dressed as strategy.

The establishment is trapped. The thing that would win (fighting economic royalism) is the thing their position depends on not doing. The candidates who could win by fighting concentrated power can’t get through primaries controlled by concentrated power. The leaders who could build coalitions through combat can’t keep positions requiring accommodation.

So they optimize within constraints they won’t name. They focus-group which messages poll best among voters while not threatening donors. They workshop talking points that sound like fighting without actually threatening anyone important. They manage coalitions toward managed defeat while calling it strategy.

This is what dead frameworks produce when the people operating them can’t admit they’re dead: increasingly sophisticated rationalization for why the same failing approach will work this time if we just execute it better.

The Base Revolt They’re Ignoring

While Jeffries optimizes messaging and Schumer recruits establishment candidates, something is happening that focus groups can’t measure and consultants can’t model: The base is organizing outside the framework.

Protests growing from 80 events in February to 1,300 simultaneous actions by April—sixteen-fold increase. Not coordinated by party infrastructure. Not funded by establishment donors. Not messaged by Democratic consultants. Grassroots organizing building power through participation in actual fights, not through optimization of focus-grouped appeals.

Economic boycotts imposing real costs. Tesla losing $800 billion in market value through sustained consumer action. Not because party leaders called for it. Because regular people decided oligarchs shouldn’t profit while supporting authoritarianism.

Artists refusing cooperation with the administration. Multiple major musicians issuing cease-and-desist orders. Museums declaring autonomy from political pressure. Universities resisting federal interference. Not because the DNC coordinated resistance. Because institutions decided defending autonomy matters more than avoiding conflict.

Maine voters packing gyms to see a 40-year-old oyster farmer who represents actual threat to established interests—while the DSCC coordinates against him in favor of a 77-year-old governor who won’t threaten anyone important.

This is the base revolt. Not against Democrats as people. Against Democrats as managers. Against the framework treating politics as optimization problem rather than as power struggle. Against establishment figures who’d rather lose managing decline than risk fighting power.

And the establishment response? Ignore it. It’s not in the focus groups. The consultants can’t model it. It doesn’t fit the framework. So pretend it’s not happening and stay focused on the disciplined economic message that’s been failing for a decade.

What 2026 Will Look Like

Democrats will lose races in 2026 while having “good message discipline on kitchen-table issues.” They’ll focus-group their way to defeat. They’ll workshop talking points about Republican plans to cut Medicare while ignoring constitutional violations. They’ll accommodate authoritarianism because swing-district members need cover.

Trump will conduct increasingly brazen violations. Democrats will call them “distractions.” The base will rage while leadership says “stay focused on cost of living.” The gap between what voters need (leadership fighting power) and what they’re offered (management optimizing messaging) will grow.

Afterward, establishment figures will produce sophisticated analyses. The focus groups validated their approach. The consultants confirm they executed correctly. The data shows they did everything right according to the framework.

What they won’t admit: The framework is dead. It died years ago. They’re just still walking because admitting it would require acknowledging their entire approach—their careers, their positions, their comfortable arrangements with wealth—has been wrong.

They’ll blame the voters for not responding to their carefully crafted appeals. They’ll blame the media for not covering their economic message. They’ll blame Republicans for being too extreme. They’ll blame everything except the obvious: You cannot fight economic royalism while depending on economic royalists. You cannot defend democracy while accommodating the concentrations of wealth that capture it. You cannot win through management when voters are desperate for someone to actually fight.

The Alternative They Can’t See

There is a path forward. Liberal populism: Constitutional defense combined with fighting economic concentrations that threaten constitutional democracy. Not socialism—republicanism defending itself against the economic royalism that would capture it.

It worked for FDR, who won four terms not by promising to abolish capitalism but by fighting to preserve democratic capitalism against the oligarchs who would transform it into feudalism. The model exists. The opening is there—Trump’s authoritarian overreach plus establishment paralysis equals desperate need for someone who’ll actually fight.

The liberal tradition has always recognized this: Concentrated power threatens liberty whether that power is governmental or economic. You cannot have democratic self-governance when oligarchs can purchase government. You cannot have legitimate markets when monopolies face no countervailing force. You cannot have republican citizenship when economic precarity makes people dependent on the powerful.

Fighting economic royalism isn’t socialism—it’s liberalism defending the conditions that make liberal democracy possible. It’s republicanism recognizing that self-governance requires preventing concentrations of power that would dominate the many for the benefit of the few.

But taking this path requires what the establishment cannot do: Fight your own donors. Risk your position. Choose voters over funders. Lead instead of manage. Say what needs saying even when it doesn’t poll well. Fight fights that need fighting even when concentrated wealth objects. Build coalitions through combat rather than managing them through accommodation.

This is the choice the dead framework prevents making: actual defense of republican self-governance versus sophisticated management of its decline. Real leadership versus optimized messaging about leadership. Democratic combat versus technocratic choreography.

The establishment keeps choosing management, optimization, choreography. Not because they’re stupid or evil, but because their institutional position depends on maintaining relationships with concentrated wealth. Because fighting economic royalism would destroy the funding keeping them in power. Because the framework is dead but they’re still walking through it, unable to imagine alternatives that don’t destroy their positions within it.

The Verdict

Hakeem Jeffries is a dead man walking. Not personally—he seems like a decent person. Institutionally. His framework is dead. His approach is dead. His assumption that voters will come crawling back to 2015 technocratic order after Trump flames out is dead.

But he doesn’t know it yet. So he keeps optimizing. Keep focus-grouping. Keep workshopping messages. Keep managing decline while calling it strategy. Keep waiting for Trump to self-destruct while ignoring that Trump’s authoritarianism is symptom of the oligarchic capture the establishment won’t fight because fighting it would destroy their funding.

Chuck Schumer is dead. Adam Schiff is dead. The entire Democratic establishment infrastructure built on donor dependency and focus-group optimization and managing coalitions through accommodation—all of it dead.

Still walking, though. Still holding meetings. Still recruiting candidates. Still producing strategy memos. Still convincing themselves that better execution of the dead framework will produce different results this time.

Meanwhile, the base organizes outside the framework. Protests multiply. Boycotts impose costs. Grassroots energy builds around candidates the establishment opposes because they represent actual threat to concentrated interests. The revolt grows while leadership says “tune out the noise and focus on kitchen-table issues.”

The choice is clear. Democratic combat or managed decline. Fighting power or optimizing within constraints set by power. Leadership or management. Life or death.

The establishment has chosen. They’ve chosen their donors over their voters, their positions over principles, managed decline over risky combat. They’ve chosen to be dead men walking—still moving, still talking, still executing strategy, but fundamentally incapable of doing what would actually work because doing it would destroy the arrangements keeping them comfortable while they lose.

Two plus two equals four. There are twenty-four hours in a day. And dead frameworks don’t become alive through better execution—they just shamble forward until something finally puts them down.

The Democratic establishment is already dead. They’re just waiting for someone to tell them.

The base is trying. But dead men can’t hear the living.

---

Go Deeper into the Circus

---