Progressive Democrat Pramila Jayapal told a recent town hall that the Department of Government Efficiency effort wasn’t about reducing the size and cost of the federal government.

Instead, it was an excuse to “implement a far-right, authoritarian, white ultranationalist Christian ideology under a dictatorial leader — otherwise known as American fascism,” the Washington state congresswoman said.

But when an audience member asked Jayapal to explain “what the Democrats in the House and in general are doing right now to envision what we stand for, not what we stand against,” she came away disappointed. Jayapal offered up getting rid of the Electoral College.

“I don’t think she really answered my question,” the woman told The Seattle Times. “What I am really craving … is Democrats being really creative about what we’re going to do and offer instead.”

Jayapal and most congressional Democrats seem to be living in a bubble of their own making, clinging to the belief that their losses in the last election weren’t so much about policy but messaging, the go-to excuse for both parties when they don’t win majorities. Many Democrats, especially those in the progressive wing, believe they lost because they didn’t go far left enough.

They couldn’t be more wrong, and that thinking has put the Democratic Party in third place — behind independents — in terms of nationwide party ID, going from 37 percent in the 2020 exit polls to 31 percent in the 2024 exit polls. The last time a major party came in behind independents was Republicans during the the Watergate era some 50 years ago. 

The existential problem Republicans had to overcome then wasn’t the Democratic Party but whether they could persuade voters that their value proposition to the country still had merit and warranted another chance — without Richard Nixon, of course.

Today, rather than undertaking some serious introspection as to what voters want and whether Democratic ideology still has value for the electorate, Democrats have turned to an old playbook: the Resistance. 

Voters have been bombarded with videos showing congressional Democrats staging “protests” at federal buildings, complete with coarse language and silly chants more reminiscent of the 1960s than a modern political party. Their “fight back” strategy so far has featured violent Tesla takedowns, “days of action,” fatuous Senate filibusters, obstructionist lawsuits, DOGE meltdowns and Jayapal’s own “resistance labs.” 

There are three problems with this strategy. 

First, going on the attack when a majority of the country has an unfavorable view of view of your party is likely going to have minimal impact.

Second, when you attack, you drive up your own negatives, exactly what the Democratic Party needs to avoid. 

And third, the Republicans they are attacking have much higher positives than their own party. In a March 7-11 NBC survey, Trump was at 46 percent positive (19 points higher than Democrats), while Elon Musk and the Republican Party were both at 39 percent (12 points above Democrats).

Democrats’ vendetta against Tesla, once the darling of the green movement, isn’t just ineffective as political theater. It’s damaging to the Democratic brand. The irony of protesters targeting Tesla owners, most of whom are probably supporters of both climate programs and the Democratic Party, shouldn’t be underestimated.

Violence directed at people, businesses and property based on political differences is the antithesis of democracy. The silence from many elected Democrats in terms of this violence has very disconcerting. Charting the direction of the country is done through elections, not using violence against fellow citizens.

That direction was defined in the last election. While it was not a landslide election (in fact, it was the seventh-closest since the first Democrat-versus-Republican presidential contest in 1856), it was a decisive one. Any time one party wins the White House, the Senate and the House, it’s a pivotal election. In this case, it was a clear reflection of the country’s view of the Biden administration. 

According to the 2024 exit polls, 59 percent of the electorate disapproved of how Joe Biden handled his job as president. Given that he was the head of the Democratic Party and that Democrats controlled everything for two of the four years of his presidency, the idea that Democrats shouldn’t be judged by the results of those years is absurd.

Voters were unhappy with Biden, but congressional Democrats pushed and passed his agenda and now own the outcomes it produced. They own the inflation rate, which decided the 2024 election. They own Afghanistan and immigration, and all the other issues that emerged during those four years.

But post-election, Democrats don’t seem to understand that Biden’s brand is their brand. His policies are their policies.

Rather than rethinking those policies, they have doubled down with an even harsher attack strategy of strange videos, awkward confrontation and foul language. This makes no sense.

They should be rethinking their value proposition to the electorate and policies that voters might actually support.

What Americans see is a party represented by celebrity Democrats and politicians who attract the attention of cable anchors by making the most outrageous comments possible. Where has this harsh strategy gotten Democrats? Even a cursory look at recent polling shows voters are resisting the Resistance. 

In a recent CNN poll, Democratic Party favorables were at 29 percent, while an NBC survey had their positives at 27 percent. In contrast, a CNN survey done at the beginning of Biden administration put the party’s favorables at 49 percent.

A recent Gallup survey found 45 percent of Democrats wanted the party to become more moderate.

After House Republicans’ devastating losses in the 2006 midterms, then Minority Leader John Boehner put together a GOP strategy for 2007. 

At the time, his members were clamoring for a plan to win back the majority, but Boehner saw it slightly differently. 

He told them the job isn’t to “win” the House back but to “earn” it back.  Boehner was saying that ultimately it was the American people who would decide who should be in charge. 

And it isn’t about better messaging or fundraising. It’s about being seen by the electorate as worthy to be entrusted with the responsibility of governing. Four years later, in the 2010 elections, Republicans regained the House majority, winning 242 seats, a pickup of 63 seats. 

Democrats need to earn their way back. If they don’t understand that, they have a very long road ahead.