Is This the Best the Democrats Can Do?

On Tuesday, the Democratic National Committee served tacos outside the Republican National Committee’s headquarters—a nod to a trendy new acronym spelling out “Trump always chickens out.” If the point was to push a slogan that works perfectly in one area (tariffs, where the president is constantly ramping up and backing down) and less perfectly in several others (immigration and general authoritarianism, where the president is running roughshod over the rule of law), then perhaps it was mildly successful. Still, the endeavor was most notable because of a comment from Vice President JD Vance: “We have,” he tweeted, “the lamest opposition in American history.” On this—and perhaps this alone—it’s hard to disagree with the vice president.

Handing free food to fascists outside their offices might be the high-water mark for the pugilism Beltway Democrats. Two days earlier, Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries appeared on CNN to weigh in on the recent fascistic detention of an aide to Democratic Representative Jerry Nadler by ICE agents to make it clear that this aggression will not stand. “In terms of how we will respond to what Trump and the administration has endeavored to do, we will make that decision in a time, place, and manner of our choosing. But the response will be continuous, and it will meet the moment that is required,” he said.

Bash, understandably, was perplexed by the answer. “What exactly does that mean? Have you not decided how to respond?” Jeffries, having apparently not realized that he had not said anything of substance at all, stared blankly ahead for a few seconds—his signature move—before repeating the line he had clearly decided was a slam dunk: “We will respond in a time, place, and manner of our choosing if this continues to happen.” To which I say, what exactly does that mean?

His counterpart in the Senate only did slightly better—or perhaps slightly worse, depending on your perspective—on Monday. Responding to reports that Secretary of State Marco Rubio and special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff were reportedly close to reaching a nuclear deal with Iran that was reportedly more or less identical to the landmark one forged by Barack Obama in 2015, Schumer returned to the TACO moniker. “If TACO Trump is already folding on Iran, the American people need to know about it. No side deals,” Schumer said.

“What kind of bull is this? They’re going to sound tough in public and then have a side deal that lets Iran get away with everything? That’s outrageous,” he added. “We need to make that side deal public. Any side deal should be before Congress and, most importantly, the American people.” Schumer’s rhetoric was more or less identical to the way Republicans attacked the Iran deal wrought by President Barack Obama.

Here you have it: The Democrats! One says he has a response but can’t say what it is or when he’ll use it, and the other one is pushing a 10-year-old Republican talking point. America has never needed an effective opposition party as badly as it needs one now; instead we have the most feckless Democratic leaders of the past 100 years.

The best thing that can be said is that Schumer and Jeffries are finally clearing the lowest of bars in their approach to Trump. For the first few months of the administration, they were guided by the belief that the iron law of political gravity would simply bring him down on its own. It had before, after all. To their minds, after being subjected to a daily barrage of crude tweets and fascism, ordinary people would finally wake up and realize that the Democrats were the only responsible, grown-up party. You know, the party that wasn’t really doing much.

To be fair to Schumer and Jeffries, this was born out of the unfortunate reality that there wasn’t much that they could do—at least in their functions as party leaders. The Democrats were out of power in the House and the Senate, and Republicans had stacked the Supreme Court despite having only won the popular vote in three presidential elections in the last 40 years. But politics can take many forms beyond legislative maneuvers and parliamentary tricks. Donald Trump’s rise is proof of this. Resistance is not solely built around investigations and legislative obstinance. One important part of politics is highlighting abuses and exploiting them. As The New Republic’s editor, Michael Tomasky, pointed out back in March, these are tasks to which Schumer and Jeffries are ill suited. And Democrats, to their regret, have not empowered those who might more deftly serve as attack dogs to take up the fight.

It’s worth taking a second to return to the matter to which Jeffries was responding. Last week, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents entered Nadler’s office, accused one of his aides of “harboring rioters,” and handcuffed her while she wept and pleaded her innocence. Nadler was unmistakably clear about what happened: “They’re behaving like fascists,” he said. “We have to fight them.”

Is this what fighting them looks like? Schumer was a vocal opponent of the deal with Iran struck by Obama: His criticism of the one Trump is nearing is not hypocrisy. It is principled opposition. But part of being the leader of an opposition party is choosing which principles to emphasize. It’s good to push back, even if the whole “TACO” thing isn’t quite the political winner a lot of Democrats think it is. But to go after the administration for continuing a policy—one of the defining foreign policies—of a beloved Democratic president at a moment when the party’s approval rating is in the toilet is simple political malpractice. Again: You have ICE agents cuffing Democratic staffers! Read the room (it’s full of fascists).

It’s clear that Jeffries and Schumer can read the room. They know that their voters want them to do more. To do something. They want a response that is continuous and that will meet the moment. What’s also clear is that they haven’t the foggiest idea what that might look like. For years, Schumer has said that he’s viewed important political decisions through the prism of an imaginary family named “The Baileys” to better guide his decisions. Perhaps it’s time for him and his fellow Democratic leaders to get real.