The Democratic Dilemma: Resist or Radicalize?

The American presidential election happened in November 2024. A narrow win feels like a landslide. In terms of the popular vote, the margin was 1.62%. Yet Republicans have wasted no time attacking everything—or more accurately, breaking everything. The president now wields king-like powers, standing above all other branches. This is far from normal. It represents a centralization of power and an attack on the federal system while simultaneously expanding control over states. Checks and balances seem complicit in this shift, highlighting how radical the change has been. However, something much bigger is happening beneath the surface.

Top Trumps

Trump won, and Harris lost. Since that defeat, Democrats have drifted. They lack a united message or voice. Leadership of the party is spread across many roles and offices. The strength of the federal government—decentralized power—has become a glaring weakness. Unlike many other political systems, there is no single opposition leader. What was once a strength is now a liability. The party has been vocal about Trump breaking rules and norms, yet many voters appear indifferent. The silence from Republicans has gone unchallenged. The mainstream media has tried to paint what is happening as normal. It is anything but normal, as Project 2025 unfolds—a deeply unpopular platform that is breaking everything.

Dazed by Defeat

Dazed by defeat, Democrats have not had time to process. Members have tried to explain the flipping of all three branches of government. The obvious point is the economy; voters told everyone it was inflation and their anger over it. Poor messaging, failure to listen to voters, and a desire to punish the party are the answers. Voters wanted change, frustrated with political gridlock. Various figures have offered ideas and analyses of why, who, and what happened. Some common themes emerge, but many are fighting past battles. It feels like a funeral happening one day after a death, with people at the wake fighting over what went wrong.

Stacking the Cards

It is unknown what these changes mean for future election cycles. The deck is being stacked in favor of Republicans. Loyalists are being installed at every level, and political appointments—scrapped decades ago—are being reintroduced. We don’t yet know how this will play out. If every new government removes civil servants, the American system, like clockwork, could grind to a halt, creating chaos. The midterms and the next race will come quickly, with different offices and seats up for grabs. Even something like voting districts can be gamed, sealing an advantage. This narrow defeat has painful consequences. With limited guardrails and moral values, people will do anything to get ahead. Republicans have proven they are ruthless and unwilling to relinquish power. This leads to a dangerous situation that could unfold. Insurrection has happened once. Under the surface, something much bigger is brewing—a volatile electorate that is fragmenting. It feels different this time.

Resist or Radicalization?

Two schools of thought have emerged. Democrats can sit back and watch the chaos unfold, playing by the old rules. Norms apply to them but not their opponents. They don’t propose major changes and instead play within the old system, treating this as a blip. They still fight but pick their battles, seeking to preserve and conserve the order that came before. One such battle is playing out now. Democrats find themselves in an impossible position on government shutdowns and the debt ceiling. They fold to avoid blame for a shutdown, seeking to win the war, not the battle.

The other viewpoint is far more fragmented. It focuses on defending liberal values and moving toward a more progressive path. There is no clear guiding light here—just a desire to improve the lives of working-class Americans. It’s about being conservative but with progressive ideas to remake the system and fix what is broken. It’s liberal versus conservative, but with progressives wanting to do more. Both sides view their approach as correct. Parties normally fight over future direction; this time is no different. Radical revolution versus incremental change. Republicans underwent a similar process, and the result was Trump. Progressives view the defeat as another ignored warning shot. Conservatives see it as a minor setback that can be dealt with. They believe the changes can be undone once the worst impacts are felt.

Resist or Revolution?

Republicans have made it very clear this is a revolution. I don’t think that has dawned on many people yet—not voters, not either party. One thing both sides are missing is the fragmentation and push toward the fringe. This leads to more backsliding and shifting gravity. Why? The gaming of the system and the primary process mean pandering in the name of purity. The right has radicalized itself before. Political parties are not immune to outside influence, which shifts the mainstream toward fringe views.

Now, the online right has radicalized itself, causing mainstream center-right parties to shift further right. This empowers the far or alt-right, bolstering its support. This small group now believes in a reality based on an information diet of nonsense, engaging with a false world. Junk information is infecting voters and parties. What has happened in America is part of a global trend. Partisan politics are on steroids, and rage is spilling out. That’s the fragmentation happening naturally across the world. Both parties are moving away from the average voter.

In America, the online right has taken over the Republican Party. Calls to move toward the center and compromise are valid, but in a hyper-partisan world, purity becomes a liability. A wide tent can be useful for reinvention, but a small tent with purity above all else is dangerous. Democrats should learn from their opponents’ mistakes. They should listen to moderate voices, progressives, and voters’ desires. But that also means unclogging the system and making major constitutional changes. Here, Trump’s wrecking ball may be a blessing for the future. One key lesson is the information war—how one side has used it and been consumed by it. The other side is still fighting by the old rules. Cleaning up the information space and dealing with tech giants is a necessary evil. Democrats must also enter this alien world and do a better job engaging with folks outside their algorithm.

Resist or Fight Another Day?

I understand why people are angry at Democrats for not fighting, but it’s part of a much bigger problem: the lack of an opposition leader and failure to reinvent the party. Democrats now need to expand their appeal. Moderates and progressives can work together to find common ground and push for necessary changes. Trump has already shown his willingness to push his power to the limits. Democrats should have shut down the government and blamed him, focusing on inflation and the chaos he was causing.

A single message focusing on why the Democrats care and addressing voters’ fears would have been deeply risky, but the hope is Trump would do the damage for them. The biggest risk is fighting everything without being strategic. The obvious fight is over spending cuts and the debt ceiling, forcing Republicans to own it and creating conflict with figures like Musk. Another viewpoint is keeping powder dry until debt ceiling talks. It all comes down to partisan politics and the ability to rise above it or sink to it.

Authoritarian Turn: Everybody is Angry

The information war has evolved. People no longer get news from mainstream sources. Instead, mainstream media is downstream. Upstream feeds are dominated by certain groups, missing their voice. This allows them to set the tone and paint the narrative before Democrats can respond. That needs addressing because one side is talking to itself, unable to connect with the voters it needs. Democrats need plain-speaking messages that resonate with voters.

The problem is one side is setting the message and tone before the debate begins. What we now have are two opposing views: an illiberal but liberal elite seeking to destroy the liberal elite. They exploit the system they helped break to destroy it and rebuild it. Authoritarian power grabs are driven by extreme partisan views. It’s easy to destroy but much harder to create. The good news is the election cycle continues. The bad news is one side seems willing to give Republicans unlimited power, fearing they’ll be consumed by this revolution. Trump now wields king-like political power. The party of small government is fine with using that power however it pleases. But they haven’t considered what happens when the other side gets it. This authoritarian takeover shows no desire to yield power. That’s just my gut talking.

Falling for Radicalization as a Response

Democrats should avoid being radicalized like Republicans. As much as I like some figures being pushed as the answer, they are not the solution but part of the problem. They do, however, have some solutions to America’s woes. Sadly, most voters don’t share that instinct or ideological lean. Voters are complicated, often holding conflicting views. They base decisions on vibes, hearsay, and information from non-mainstream sources.

That last point is something Democrats need to address quickly. They must enter the rabbit hole—not to be consumed by it but to use it to deliver their message. I’m an outsider to American politics but no stranger to progressive versus moderate battles. My views lean progressive, but I think about politics differently than most voters, who often don’t. If you’re curious why Trump can get away with breaking the rules, that’s why. Voters care more about the price of eggs and gas. Democrats and their allies should start there and build a case against Trump. That also means winning the information war and quickly getting into the fight.

Don’t Panic: Time for Action on Ukraine

Calm heads are required. A knee-jerk reaction is a mistake. You should take your time, to consider and reflect. Failure to response to Russian aggression. Inaction is how we have got here. Europe as whole did not give Ukraine everything it needed to win. It tried to do half measures, to avoid economic pain. Russia war economy is overheating, it has been unable to take Ukraine. In the 3 years, progress has been painfully slow and stalled. What support we have given Ukraine has been a massive success. Now it seems the Americans have changed sides. Who could have seen that coming? Oh, I don’t know, it was in plain sight and obvious.

Europe and rest of the west should accept this what has happened. Learn from it mistakes. Warm words do not win wars. Action however does. What worries me is inaction and gravity pulling us in a direction that not in are interests. The last 3 years of policy look to be a failure. If you wanted Ukraine to win and this conflict between west and Russia to be contained. If not obvious we’re at war with Russia, that how they view it. Viewing it as a scale and willing to push but avoid what we consider all out war. So what should we be doing? Well, ramping up production, aiming to supply Ukraine. With the goal of domestic production. At the same time increasing defence spending and looking at replacing American’s ability in Europe. The goal here is building a new command centre with Europe in control and leading. Lots that need to be done here. That going to be longer term thing but required. Holding back on stronger sanctions for now unless something big happens. What is required, here, is going to be deeply painful.

What happened in the White House this week was shocking but a wake-up call. We have time to improve things. The price of peace is much higher than it was. Europe is rich and can pay that price. We may not like it, but we can do it. Otherwise, we’re heading towards war with Russia and going to end up unprepared. One bit of good news here, a formal war has not happened yet. I’m worried, yes, but half glass full we can avoid the worst of it. It does require paying the price to achieve peace we want and doing what is necessary.

Good Man and Bad President Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter was a good man but a bad president. He was also unlucky. A one-term president, he served during a time of deep crisis—some of his own making, others beyond his control. The weak economy of the 1970s, hit by multiple shocks, defined his presidency. The oil shock of the decade led to high inflation and unemployment, causing widespread dissatisfaction with his leadership. One of his key decisions was appointing Paul Volcker as Chair of the Federal Reserve. While Volcker’s policies eventually reduced inflation, the benefits and credit largely went to Carter’s successor.

Carter’s style of governance was rooted in attention to detail, micromanagement, and telling hard truths—often to his detriment. He presented himself as an outsider and acted in a more human, smaller role, akin to a head of state. Above all, he prioritised public service and duty for the greater good—a trait that defined his post-presidential years. A reformer and a strong defender of civil and human rights, Carter did some of his most important work outside the White House. He never allowed his presidency to define him. Avoiding the lucrative path of paid speeches, he focused instead on the hard work of progress.

Above all else, Carter was a public servant—modest and honest. His biggest flaw was his stubbornness as an outsider, which left him isolated and unable to work effectively with his own party. However, this same quality became a strength after leaving office. While his presidency is widely considered a failure, he laid the groundwork for his successors’ successes.

The Iranian hostage crisis exemplifies his misfortune. Carter authorised a daring but failed rescue mission, yet he worked tirelessly until the final minutes of his presidency to negotiate their release. The hostages were freed mere minutes after Ronald Reagan took office. This incident highlights Carter’s bad luck and the potential humiliation inflicted by Iran—though whether the delay was intentional or coincidental remains unclear. Carter’s hard work often went unrecognised, but he never sought the limelight. Years later he did win noble peace prize.

He reminds me of the late Queen Elizabeth II: a public servant above all else, never seeking to enrich himself and always maintaining modesty, even while occupying a grand office. After leaving office, Carter never pursued wealth. Instead, he used his influence with a deep sense of public duty. His approach to leadership reflected a more European style—dignified and understated, though occasionally outspoken. It feels almost poetic.

His successor, Ronald Reagan, was his complete opposite—a pattern that seems to repeat in history. The contrast is evident today with Joe Biden and Donald Trump. The latter, a criminal, represents a bad man and a bad president. Biden, much like Carter, is blamed for issues largely beyond his control. High inflation has tarnished his reputation, and his party struggles to craft a positive narrative. Biden is passing on a recovered economy, but without receiving the credit. It feels tragically poetic that Carter passed away before Trump takes office again.

Jimmy Carter lived to the remarkable age of 100, serving as the 39th President of the United States and outlasting many of his successors. Trump, set to become the 47th president, underscores Carter’s extraordinary longevity. Carter was the oldest living former president, a title that now passes to Joe Biden—who originally endorsed Carter early in his career. This full-circle moment connects the oldest president, the oldest former president, and now the oldest to take office. Both men have been heavily influenced by Christian values and beliefs.

My knowledge of Carter was rather limited until his death. I knew about his work building homes and that he was an outsider. I never saw him giving speeches or trying to make money. He was a low-key public servant even outside of office, and he earned my respect. He is one of the great post-presidencies, redefining what it means to serve after leaving office. Carter created a blueprint for others to follow. There will not be another one like him—American politics is too toxic and dysfunctional now. The age of good chaps and gentlemen is over. A former peanut farmer, Carter was a good man but a bad president—a shining light for how politicians should conduct themselves out of office.

Bedtime Blog: Balancing Hope and Concern on Assisted Dying in the UK

I’m writing this blog post at 10 p.m., so it’s going to be a quick one before bed. Originally, I planned to write something a couple of days ago, but the subject of the assisted dying bill brought back memories I did not want to revisit. Today’s subject is the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.

• House of Commons link
• A similar bill from the House of Lords

It’s a private member’s bill, something which almost never gets passed, making its way through the House of Commons. The last time a bill like this was debated was in 2015, yet now it has passed its second reading.

You can read the bill here: Full Bill PDF

At 38 pages long, it seems to be rather strict in outlining when this new legal power can be used.

I broadly support the bill, but I still have some concerns. My first concern is that the safeguards may be too strict, potentially making the process too lengthy. I’m unsure whether the safeguards will have the desired impact or might cause unintended negative effects instead.

I also have a deep mistrust and fear about state abuse. It wasn’t long ago that the NHS issued ‘do not resuscitate’ orders for some patients during the COVID pandemic without transparency. Alongside historic abuse in care homes, vulnerable people in society have been treated poorly for a long time.

That said, I am reminded of my own painful experiences watching family members die slowly and painfully, with no hope of recovery. Ending it all would have been a much better option than hopelessly fighting against the odds.

Arguments against the bill often include concerns about poor social care, poor outcomes, and inadequate end-of-life care. I don’t view these as valid arguments because the people making them have had the opportunity to address these problems but have chosen not to.

I hope this bill brings these issues to the forefront, but the current government already has a long list of problems to tackle. Radical reform of deep structural issues is likely to take a back seat to more immediate concerns. I’m cautiously optimistic that we might finally address this, but after 14 years or more of neglect, the state is in a massive hole—far weaker, doing more with less, lacking expertise, and barely functioning in some areas.

My next big concern is that this bill will place additional burdens on already stretched resources. I also have deep-seated concerns that some people, particularly the disabled and vulnerable, may be coerced into taking this route. There’s a risk that a future government might exploit this law for headline-grabbing purposes, with potentially devastating consequences. Given the past abuse of power and lack of moral standing, these fears are not unfounded.

I suppose the broader issue here is a deep mistrust of the state, something I hadn’t considered as fully until today. On one hand, I support this bill; on the other, I worry about its implications.

However painful my memories are, this decision should not be taken lightly. Crossing the Rubicon on such a significant issue demands caution. This could be one of the biggest societal changes in the UK for generations. Perhaps it will finally lead us to discuss ageing and death more openly. Maybe, in time, we’ll be ready to talk about other taboo subjects, like sex and relationships.

Who knows? What I do know is that this was a historic day. For the first time I can remember, the House of Commons was silent when the bill passed. It restored a bit of my faith in politics. Perhaps this new Parliament is better than the last.

The middle – US presidential election

The U.S. presidential election will take time to analyze as we wait for data to explain the outcome. I’ve posted some early, sleep-deprived thoughts here. Trump’s gains were widespread, so any explanations should start there. The incumbent’s party lost, following a familiar pattern—recent incumbents have often lost for similar reasons. Voters were fed up with high inflation, and the incumbent didn’t address their concerns. Here’s a chart showing global voting patterns, and another highlighting trends from the 2024 U.S. election.

Red Dawn

Trump didn’t just improve his margins in swing states; he made gains in Democratic strongholds too. Harris’s campaign managed to swim against very strong currents, losing by only a small margin in seven swing states. The swing fell within the polling error, which isn’t bad, but this defeat feels more significant than 2016. It’s a harsh loss that will demand a complete rethink and strategic response moving forward. The forces that put Trump in the White House could easily turn against him, but I wouldn’t bet on it. There’s a much deeper trend here—one that’s been building for years and has now solidified. Non-graduate voters shifting from Democrats to Republicans has been ongoing, but now, non-white working-class voters are following the path of their white counterparts. One positive: Black voters have largely remained loyal to the Democrats. A good starting point for analysis could be the working-class boroughs in New York City. This chart from Nate Silver illustrates the long-standing issue Democrats face.

Help!

It’s not that voters are in love with Trump or his policies—they just want him to fix inflation and the cost-of-living crisis. Many are deeply frustrated with the political system and the economy. Ironically, while Republicans have helped break the system, Democrats are taking the blame. Most people don’t follow politics closely; they care more about gas prices, eggs, and other essentials. It’s only when things get chaotic that they tune in. So, when Trump talked about gas prices, many voters turned out for him and tuned out the rest. Trump is still unpopular, and that’s a huge problem: if he oversteps his mandate—which he’s likely to—it’ll store up trouble down the line. His win isn’t a vindication; it’s about people wanting him to make them feel better off. Failing to deliver will cause issues, from policies that could trigger an inflationary spiral to deportations affecting people who never expected it to happen to them.

Twist and Shout

Smart Republicans should take note and avoid indulging their worst impulses. Like the Democrats, they’re likely to face internal conflicts—free-trade business interests versus protectionism, or the desire for social security programs versus cutting government spending. Billionaire libertarians and the highly educated elite want different things. Republican leaders without degrees have a stronger grasp of what the non-graduate majority feels and have tapped into that sentiment. Democrats could learn from their opponents, especially about how people consume news today. The far right now has a new breeding ground based on old ideas. Engaging in unfamiliar or even unfriendly spaces and fostering new media networks could be essential. The elephant in the room is disinformation and misinformation—Republicans have ruthlessly exploited this, along with the far right leaking ideas into the right mainstream.

Under the Waves

There’s also a chance for a reset here, with the next battle coming in just two years at the midterms. Time hasn’t stopped, and history hasn’t ended—it’s about getting back up after being knocked down. Rethinking is required to handle a political force like Trump. A fresh perspective is essential, but it’s going to be painful—a real catch-22. Polarisation among educated voters makes shifting rightward on some issues challenging. “Sacred cows” that are non-negotiable leave many voters thinking, “You don’t speak for me.” As a British progressive, I can say this is incredibly painful and a global challenge for centre-left parties. Failing to deliver what voters want could quickly turn the tide, but that won’t solve the larger problem. After three straight defeats over 14 years, the UK Labour Party came back from its worst defeat to its largest majority by ditching several unpopular stances and making changes. Nothing is set in stone.

We also won’t know turnout details for a while or whether voters switched allegiances or simply stayed home, feeling torn between Trump and Harris.

Owner of a Lonely Heart

Expanding on the Labour Party example, Democrats can make a comeback too, but it will require hard work and a deep understanding of the challenge ahead. To put it another way—didn’t Republicans make a massive comeback after Obama? My heart breaks with you; the grief will take time to process. Rebuilding won’t be easy, and it will require some genuinely painful compromises. Talk to Republicans about how much they had to change with Trump. Political apathy will only give Trump and his allies more power—they’re counting on it, and with the level of grief you’re likely feeling now, losing trust in the process makes sense. I know what that feels like. As I said earlier, it’s going to require a shift in perspective and some serious rethinking.

Sense of Direction

Ignoring legitimate grievances is how we got here. Trying to shame people won’t help your cause. Labeling people as racists or fascists won’t stop them from voting for far-right nationalist parties. So maybe it’s time to focus on listening to them. Speaking of which, moderates fared far better than others. Calling people “garbage” only causes them to shut down before you can even speak. I speak from experience on that. I don’t have all the answers, and frankly, it’s going to take time before anyone does. The worst thing you can do is double down on a failed approach.

Don’t Look Back in Anger

Defiance and resilience are needed. Let’s avoid hyperbole and over-the-top rhetoric. Yes, tensions are high, and so is fear, but we should treat each other with kindness. Actions speak louder than words, and America could use some kindness right now.

Lost in the Echo

The hard truth is that the Democratic Party has failed to speak to voters in a straightforward way. This was a party failure, not a single person’s fault—not Biden’s or Harris’s alone. The party focused on news channels most ordinary people don’t watch and disconnected itself from the pulse of American life. Closing note: everything will be okay, if you listen to the message voters have just sent.

I may have included some song references in this blog post. See if you can spot them.