Democrats and the Siren Call of Culture Denialism

They just can’t resist!

Just about a year ago, right before the beginning of Trump’s second term, I published a piece on “The Democrats’ Culture Denialism.” At that point, I observed that Democrats were resisting—strenuously resisting—coming to terms with the role of cultural issues in their stunning 2024 election loss. Indeed, they were desperately clutching at any possible interpretation that would downgrade the importance of these issues and obviate the need to change their associated positions and priorities. I wondered whether this delusional attitude could possibly persist as Trump’s second term unfolded; surely they would come to their senses as they lived through the real world consequences of their defeat.

Well, I’m not wondering any more. Democrats, it turns out, just cannot resist the siren call of culture denialism. The last year has shown over and over again that culture denialism just makes too many things too easy for too many in the party and avoids too many fights that too many Democrats don’t want to have. In short, they have chickened out. It’s the victory of coalition management over coalition expansion.

The liberal commentator Noah Smith is one of the few Democrats willing to clearly call out how little Democrats have changed since their epic 2024 loss.

I have seen zero evidence that progressives have reckoned with their immigration failures of 2021-23. I have not seen any progressive or prominent Democrat articulate a firm set of principles on the issue of who should be allowed into the country and who should be kicked out.

This was not always the case. Bill Clinton had no problem differentiating between legal and illegal immigration in 1995, and declaring that America had a right to kick out people who come illegally.

I have seen no equivalent expression of principle during the second Trump presidency. Every Democrat and progressive thinker can articulate a principled opposition to the brutality and excesses of ICE and to the racism that animates Trump’s immigration policy. But when it comes to the question of whether illegal immigration itself should be punished with deportation, Democrats and progressives alike lapse into an uncomfortable silence.

Every Democratic policy proposal I’ve seen calls to refocus immigration enforcement on those who commit crimes other than crossing the border illegally. But what about those who commit no such crime? If someone who crosses illegally and then lives peacefully and otherwise lawfully in America should be protected from deportation, how is the right-wing charge of “open borders” a false one?

More generally, I have seen no attempt to reckon with why Americans were so mad about immigration under Biden. I have seen no acknowledgement that Americans dislike the violation of the U.S. law that says “You may not cross the border unless explicitly admitted under our immigration system.” I have seen zero recognition of the anger over quasi-legal immigrants’ use of city social services and state and local welfare benefits.

I have not seen any Democrat or progressive even discuss the concern that too rapid of a flood of immigrants could change American culture in ways that the nation’s existing citizenry don’t want. Nor have American progressives looked overseas and wondered why the people of Canada and (to a lesser degree) Europe have forced their own governments to decrease immigration numbers dramatically in recent years…

Nor have I seen much attempt to grapple with many other issues that hobble the progressive movement—the unfairness of DEI, the blatant permissiveness toward crime and disorder in blue cities, the dependence of progressive governance on useless or corrupt nonprofits, the unpopular stands on certain trans issues, and so on. Those issues aren’t as important as immigration and inflation, but they contribute to a general perception of the progressive movement and the Democratic party as being out of touch with the masses and unserious about governing.

Of course, the occasional Democrat has at least poked gingerly at some of these issues. But as a general assessment of Democratic movement on cultural issues, Smith is correct. By and large, the party has not budged.

Consider the trans issue which loomed so large in the 2024 election and where Democrats are indisputably on the wrong side of public opinion. Axios recently asked 20 Democrats viewed as possible contenders for the 2028 presidential nomination the following questions: “Should transgender girls be able to participate in girls’ sports? Do you believe transgender youths under age 18 should be able to be placed on puberty blockers and hormones? [W]hat is your response to the question: ‘Can a man become a woman?’”

Of the 20 contenders, 17 (!) declined to provide answers. Of the three that did (Josh Shapiro, Pete Buttigieg, and Rahm Emanuel) only Emanuel provided unhedged answers and even here to only two of the questions: Can a man become a woman (no) and should transgender girls be able to participate in girls’ sports (no).

Interestingly, Gavin Newsom, who refused to provide answers here, did attempt one in another context on his own podcast. His guest Ben Shapiro pointed out: “The question that you’re not wanting to answer...is whether boys can become girls.”

Newsom replied: “Yeah, I just, well, I think, uh, for the grace of God.”

OK then! That clears it all up.

---

So what accounts for this continuing refusal to engage with a massive area of vulnerability, choosing coalition management over coalition expansion? Why can’t Democrats resist the siren call of culture denialism, even after the humiliating defeat by their greatest enemy in 2024? There are several reasons.

Start with the well-documented decline in popularity of Trump and his administration over the last year. His current approval rating is low and even lower on the economy. Voters do not believe his administration has prioritized the right issues and view a wide range of his specific policies quite negatively.

There is thus a strong temptation to exploit this thermostatic reaction to Trump and his excesses and leave contentious underlying problems alone. Indeed, few things make the Democratic base happier than firing up the #Resistance to Trump and his minions. Democratic politicians find it exceedingly easy to feed off this energy, banking the associated donations, media attention, and activist support. The incentive structure for politicians is overwhelmingly in this direction; there is very little obvious payoff from challenging party cultural shibboleths.

This fundamental dynamic has been reinforced by recent favorable election results for the Democrats. In November, Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill easily won the governorships of, respectively, Virginia and New Jersey. Both candidates had moderate images, avoided cultural issues (but did not change their underlying positions which aligned closely with party orthodoxy) and framed their campaigns around “affordability.”

In New York City, democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani won the mayoralty without changing his underlying and very left wing views on cultural issues but, even more relentlessly than Spanberger and Sherrill, talking about affordability, affordability, affordability.

So there’s your playbook. Don’t aggressively push your cultural positions but don’t change them either and talk a lot about affordability. After all, voters only really care about economic issues….don’t they?

That’s certainly what most Democrats appear to want to believe. The idea has penetrated deeply into the Democrats’ DNA that cultural issues are not real issues. They are artifacts of the Republican attack machine, preying on bigoted impulses, rather than real concerns of voters. Real issues concern tangible things like the economy, health care, government programs, and the like. How else to explain the remarkable quiescence throughout the party as it moved sharply and consistently left for a decade across all cultural/values issues from crime and immigration to race and gender? These issues were treated as a costless playground for social justice commitments.

But of course they weren’t and they aren’t. They are very real issues that reflect very real concerns. Voters overwhelmingly believe illegal immigration is wrong and should be deterred not indulged. They believe crimes should be punished, public safety is sacrosanct and that police and policing are vital necessities. They believe, with Martin Luther King, that people should “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character” and therefore oppose discrimination on the basis of race no matter who benefits from that discrimination. They believe biological sex is real, that spaces limited to biological women in areas like sports and prisons should be preserved, and that medical treatments like drugs and surgery are serious interventions that should not be available simply on the basis of declared gender identity, especially for children.

These issues reflect deeply held beliefs and values and are vitally important to ordinary voters, especially working-class voters, not diversions from real issues foisted upon them by crafty Republicans. Which party reflects their values and can be counted on to instantiate those values in governance? Cultural issues and priorities, not just or even mostly economic ones, play a huge role for most voters in answering these questions.

Indeed, the Democrats’ touching faith that anointing their party with affordability pixie dust will eliminate all their vulnerabilities is the kind of crude economic determinism that would make Karl Marx blush. Politics isn’t, and has never been, that simple.

It should also be pointed out that affordability is a slogan not an economic program worthy of the name. As Smith points out, just as Democrats are unresponsive to the need to plausibly address cultural issues, they have also been derelict on the economic front.

[I have not] seen progressives or Democrats question the basic idea of throwing ever-greater government subsidies at overpriced, supply-constrained service industries like child care, health care, and education. This approach, which was conceived by progressive economists and communicated to the Democrats via think tanks like the Roosevelt Institute and the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, has obvious flaws. It pushes up service prices both microeconomically, by subsidizing demand, and macroeconomically, by raising structural deficits and encouraging inflation.

But I have not seen any reevaluation of this basic approach; if progressives are once again handed power, Americans can probably expect more increases in these dubious subsidies, and the deficits and the inflation that go along with them.

It is not too much of a stretch to see Democrats’ cluelessness on the economic front as of a piece with their culture denialism. Both stem from an unwillingness to challenge what their professional-class supporters are comfortable with and engage with the realities of contemporary politics and economics.

So what hope is there for Democrats to resist the siren call of culture denialism? At this point probably not much and I expect that to be true through the 2026 election and its immediate aftermath, since those election results are likely to be favorable and reinforce the no-change dynamic.

As 2028 comes into view, things may change. Having to win a high turnout presidential election may encourage grappling with underlying vulnerabilities. But it’s hardly a sure thing. Perhaps, like Ulysses, a brave Democratic candidate will strap themselves to the mast so that he or she can resist the siren call of culture denialism. It may take such heroic efforts to succeed.