Cracks in the MAGA base and lessons Democrats can learn from Democratic Socialists

A bevvy of polls this past week consistently show that Trump's approval ratings are sinking to his core base of true believers and core followers. https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/steve-kornacki-new-poll-shows-cracks-forming-in-trump-s-maga-base-254388805882 

 It remains to be seen how many of those left in Trump's 2024 winning coalition will suck it up like good patriots. The conclusions of a variety of pollsters are that some pretty angry and disillusioned MAGA voters feel Trump failed them to make good on the cost-of-living issues and feel he lied to them. However, there is also a word of warning for Democrats in the MAGA unrest. Democrats could also fail to deliver, as well, if they ever get both houses of Congress and the Oval Office again. The lesson is: do not make promises you know you cannot keep. The success of Democrat Socialists in the primaries contain some very good pointers for traditional Democrats as well.

The "old 'house built on sand is the first to perish ' "is as good as any old saying ever devised. That sand is what Trump promised to do what he did not have the power to do in 2024. He then doubled down on the inevitable failure by shoveling more sand into a developing sinkhole of quicksand while blaming Biden for it. (Given Biden left the economy with 3 percent inflation, now creeping up, and under $4 a gallon gas seems to have been conveniently forgotten by MAGA. )Wth Trump, the buck never stops at the Oval Office desk.  

The issues that poll the worst are the management of the economy (the poor get poorer, and the oligarchs and the Trump family get richer). Even foreign policy, launching the Iran war, is hitting the part of the economy l already left in the dust, and most of them get the connection. In the price of oil per barrel raising costs to farmers). The tax cuts to benefit the rich obviously did not trickle down to the rest of us.  Subverting Obamacare and cutting health insurance coverage do not lower, but raise the cost of insurance. (Clever of the GOP to implement it after the midterms, but a warning will be mailed just before Nov. 3.) Launching foreign war ads to the cost of groceries, as well.  

Bitten once, voters are not inclined to be bitten again soon. They rightly should be sceptical of anyone of any political stripe promising what they cannot deliver. The Democrats need to be specific about solutions that also sound plausible and limited to the doable.   A vague insinuation that voting for Democrats, instead,  will simply reverse the trend and punish the person causing it may sound appealing, but those who are specific about exactly what they plan to do and have the power and ability to do it will have the most credibility. The most disillusioned are the younger voters who have the sword of Damocles of student debt hanging over their ability to buy a home or even make day-to-day ends meet. It would be wise for Democrats to address these problems, too, if they fear the disillusioned younger generation flees our form of democracy and the wake of a run-amok capitalism that they feel failed them.

A reader responded that at least Trump is transparent when it comes to potential charges: what he is doing is criminal or in violation of the Constitution. Careful there: Transparency with Trump is not because he is honest. With him, it is a strategy to make you think that since it is in the open, it is not a crime. 1) We do not know what or if, anything else is not disclosed or if he is hiding it; especially any tit-for-tat, quid pro quo, and bribery. 2) he has immunity from prosecution thanks to SCOTUS. 3) He knows his immunity ends when he leaves office so he is trying to get immunity from IRS audits and other potential prosecutions.

There is much handwringing and fear permeating moderates in the Democratic Party, and all in MAGAland. Instead of quaking, there are some lessons for all to learn from these upstarts of Democratic Socialists (DA). Democratic Socialists have had some success in primaries, and here is what Democrats should take a page from their playbook. They are plainspoken, ID the winning issues, and give specific achievable solutions. Democratic Socialists have not promised blue sky, but they have been very specific in what they promise, while sounding feasible, too. (Yes, that current DSA message eclipses some of their very unpopular platform planks). They proposed Medicare for all, an easy-to-understand solution to the cost of health care, for example.  They propose building more low-income housing and flooding the market with availability and competition to lower rent costs or the ability to buy the American dream of homeownership., They propose fighting greedy corporations who try to buy up all of the housing they can to control the market, both purchase price and rental. That is another concept voters can grasp.   Getting the heck out of futile wars of choice in the Middle East may be a tough one, given the predicted Iranian chokehold on Hormuz. Simply declaring victory and withdrawing will leave Iran having the Western world slung over the high price per barrel for years is not a good outcome. 

Update 8/31/26  Some on the right are trying to brand all Democrats as "communists". While the planks of the Democratic Socialists of America are closer to Marx than to FDR, their embrace of the GAZA issue, their impact has been limited, mostly in local or district races. Even many who look or talk like them on some issues are quick to say they do not agree with all of DSA's specific planks. However, their success has given MAGA a talking point and a scare tactic.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/democratic-socialist-candidates-show-gains-but-limited-reach-in-2026/.

Before falling into the trap of swallowing the MAGA line hook, line, and sinker, understand that the DSA appeal centers on affordability, which cuts across ideological and practical concerns for many voters. Consider and accept or reject each candidate's solutions to affordability concerns, Part of DSA's success is that they have been specific in their proposals, limited to popular legislation like Medicare for All and building more low-income housing. Both moderate Democrats and Republicans have failed to provide their plans to tackle the affordability issue, relying instead on anti-this or anti-that.

U

However, the price of groceries and gas at the pump was never totally in Trump's power to make good on his promises, but they were in his power to make it worse, which he has done. We do not have a centrally planned economy, so "Zap", he could not edict prices, but he could monkey with elements that would affect grocery prices a bit. Instead, what he did do was tariffs, and Hormuz caused prices to rise. Voters seem to get that. He is right now proposing to flood the market with Argentine hamburger meat to force the price of beef down. In so doing, he is really ticking off ranchers and agriculture-related MAGAs within his base. I feel their pain living in an ag community, and I feel mine at the grocery store, too. 

Update 9/4/2026: Not only did Trump tick off his rural ag supporters by intending to flood the markets with Argentine beef (and Brazilian beef that went uninspected) earlier, he had cut the program to inspect beef coming into the USA. Imported beef must meet the same standards and pass inspection for contaminants as domestic beef; they also must meet packaging requirements and disclose the country of origin. But when those inspectors are understaffed, what then? https://www.propublica.org/article/foreign-food-safety-inspections-historic-low-fda?fbclid=IwY2xjawUHk1RwZG9mBWV4dG4DYWVtAjEwAGJyaWQRMXNGODJTcnBwcjd3OHM1UDFzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeIk3AgXMSJ5kDzDpmpAzEiTjQPxJIBzlyFOC0hMz9LTBVjtd1SlORYCOzW1Y_aem_ufrN43wR1F7EYkLKOmOSRg

To add insult to injury, when the EU banned Brazilian beef because of evidence of antibiotic use and contamination, Trump immediately removed tariffs on imports of Brazilian beef USA, likely per Forbes, in support of his billionaire donor. Not only did Trump tick off his rural ag supporters by intending to flood the markets with Argentine beef (and Brazilian beef that went uninspected) earlier, he had cut the program to inspect beef coming into the USA. Imported beef must meet the same standards and pass inspection for contaminants as domestic beef; they also must meet packaging requirements and disclose the country of origin. But when those inspectors are understaffed, what then? https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2026/09/03/how-a-brazilian-billionaire-won-a-us-tariff-exemption-for-beef-the-eu-wont-buy/

The price per barrel of oil is, and never was, in Trump'scontrol. It is a commodity that is marketed worldwide, immediately sensitive to the forces of supply and demand, and under the control of oil cartels.  One part of the world sneezes, and the rest of the world, including us in America, gets sick, too. Trump has already released oil reserves, and now our reserves are among the lowest in our post WWII history.

Parts of the following also appear in my Substack and Facebook posts and comments :

Semantics:: Democrats do have a problem in messaging. They sometimes use more than 3-syllable words or words not in common usage by "ordinary" people. Trump ridiculed "affordability". Whoever used that in a conversation, he asked.. Maybe it works (and so far it has) because the first four syllables are in plain English. (affordable, get it?). The other pet peeve I have is the use of "grift".  Even I had to run to Webster's for that one to see what it encompassed. However, "grift " for sure was never used as a common term in our family, but it covers much,  from padding one's pockets, greed, to bribery and a lot of dirt in between.  Corruption comes close enough to be nearly encompassing. (Being greedy does not always result in getting rich) . Whatever both are, affordability and corruption, they are part of the same: unfairness. ...which is very much in common usage. "Fairness" brings up another overriding issue: the rich are getting very rich, and the rest of us are seeing our standard of living decrease.  There is a growing outrage that "It just ain't fair!"

"No Kings" served for a time as a substitute for Trump's non-democratic behavior and power grabs, but that sounds quaint, even if it is a non-hackle-raising accusation. Actually, the best parallel to Trump's obsession with gathering all the wealth he can while he can, issuing his own laws, ignoring laws that stand in his way, and punishing those who disobey them or him, or do not comply,  fits the "mob boss" role model the best. Since the venue is government, the best tag is "political mobster" or "political mob boss". Dictator or autocrat he may aspire to be, but he has not beaten down the lower courts totally yet. His preoccupation with vengeance, punishment,  and greed for power and wealth, only for him and those loyal to him, qualifies him as a "mob boss" the best. His corruption is in your face and in the open. The problem with tagging him as a mob boss is he does not look like one; he just acts like one.  The failure of the GOP-dominated Congress and the 6 Trump loyal justices on the Supreme Court who have not put the brakes on him, who have approved his power grabs, are this political mobster's enablers.

The big tent of a two party system is not by design, but by necessity

Yesterday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries invited the newly winning NY Democratic Socialists into the Democratic Party, just as Democrats have included  Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders in their Congressional caucus, even though most in the Democrats' House caucus do not share the anti-capitalist and one-class-of-workers rhetoric and ideology of the Democratic Socialists.  https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/jeffries-welcomes-democratic-socialists-fold-194230441.html    How did that happen ? Does it mean the Democratic Party embraces socialism, hook, line, and sinker? No. It has to do with reality: strength in numbers is a necessity, and a big ten strategy that dominates both parties. What Democrats and Social Democrats do share are the issues of "affordability" and anti-oligarchy.

 As Democrats now wrestle with the growing strength of the Democratic Socialist wing's rise in New York and the GOP barely disguises its White Christian Nationalist fascist-like wing, voters are more and more divided into warring two political parties, with each claiming the other has been taken over by wings to be feared.  The reality is that there has already been a two-party system in the US that forces compromise, exclusion, and inclusion within US politics.  It is reflected in both elections and the makeup of caucus structures in Congress and state legislatures.  Independents, or those who identify with Democratic Socialism on the left and libertarians on the right, pick the caucus of one of the two major parties in Congress that most closely represents their ideology or issue positions, even though only a fraction of their preferences are accepted. The result is what we see now: the term "socialist," which used to scare more establishment Democrats and most voters, is no longer freaking out most New York voters, though that might not be true in the rest of the country.  What happened in NY could stay in NY, but probably not, because of a growing revolt against the GOP being the party of oligarchs and big business who care little about the kitchen table needs of working people and even the middle class.

 The GOP is grappling with a wannabe autocrat who seems not to care a whit about their lower-class voters and who relishes branding the other party and their constituents as undesirables.  Trump is still in power and governs by whipping self-identified members into loyal occupants of his Trumpist tent. He does it by threats of being primaried if they are not loyal 100% on every issue their leading MAGA faction leader demands. On the other side of the aisle, the old joke is still applicable: "I do not belong to an organized party. I am a Democrat."...but since numbers of votes count as a measure of strength and the road to power, they too invite all they can into their big tent, even if they have to hold their noses at the word socialist.  What has happened is that the traditional Democratic Party leaders now realize these socialists were onto a winning message: affordability. The result is yesterday, as the Democratic House minority leader invited Democratic Socialists into their caucus, even though most already there do not embrace the anti-capitalist rhetoric or ideology of the Democratic Socialists. 

Our founders did not plan it that way and, in fact, viewed political parties as a threat to the system they envisioned in the Constitution they were constructing. Political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution, but arose as liberals and conservatives consolidated their power with organizations and names,  under the banner and protection of the First Amendment, freedom of speech, and the freedom to gather to air their grievances.  

Two parties have dominated throughout our history, but they have frequently changed names and even reversed political ideology,  even changing places, particularly in the wake of the Civil War. Their institutionalization can be found in the politics of individual states, protected by their own statutes and issues of gerrymandering, and the details of when and where and who qualifies to be on a ballot. Most voters like it simple and, if not very engaged in political news, check the box for the party's choice in general elections. Splinter parties, third parties, have a difficulty of even gathering enough votes to be a part of the power structure and how to influence the direction of the country,  or enven getting parts of their platform enacted into law, with the only route to be heard and to convince one or other party, Democrat or Republican, so they battle it out within the parties, and during the primary season, and political conventions.. 

There are no party membership cards; it is a matter of self-identification and of whether the party's leaders reach out to include them. There is a matter of reality, that in close partisan elections, every vote counts, and even the leadership has to welcome them as they hold their noses.  The result is the big tent: the bottom line in Congress and in primaries and general elections is which party gets the most votes.  In short, there is strength in numbers in a democracy.  It is a necessity. Fractions can only find their voice by joining a major party and making their case within it. From the perspective of the major party, the pressure is to be as big a tent as possible to win and gain the power to govern, even though not all in it are on the same page on every issue.

 The result is what we see now: the term socialist that used to scare the more establishment Democrats and voters themselves is now right out there in the open and winning localized elections. The GOP is grappling with a wannabe autocrat who seems not to care a whit about the voters and who relishes branding the other party and their constituents as undesirables, while whipping their members into loyal occupants of their tent by threats of being primaried and finding themselves excommunicated if they are not loyal 100% on every issue their leading MAGA faction demands. On the other side of the aisle, the old joke is still applicable: "I do not belong to an organized party. I am  a Democrat." However, the reality and necessity persist: strength in numbers.

My facebook friend responded with...so what do you want to do about it? Where am I personally? I rarely am so open or ever did my own manifesto, but here it is at this moment. There is is no silver bullet. Yes, the 2008 financial crisis was because regulators were asleep at the wheel, mixing bad, risky loans with good ones in tranches, and then passing them off as purely A-rated...among some. Other banks did not have enough capital in reserve In relation to bad loans, etc. I am not sure if I can resurrect my old columns on that, but the regulators were MIA in the RE tranches, likewise in the Bernie Madoff scheme. Lots of reform legislation was passed, but if no one enforces them, they are as I said, not worth the paper they were printed on. Where am I going with democratic socialists? As I wrote... it is a necessity I am not totally comfortable with, I guess. I am more middle-of-the-road. Capitalism, well-regulated and fair to the middle class and workers, but opposed to lopsided tax laws that only benefit the already very rich, which do not trickle down. The rich should pay their fair share. Trick down work? Never has; never will. 

I did not mention foreign policy and Trump's blunder on the Iran war, but I am still a bit of a cold warrior, and I vehemently support Ukraine's brave attempt to join the West in the face of Russian invasion. To update, with half of my family in Europe, stability and freedom from Putin's control are as important now as they were in the last century.  Trump's isolationism is a danger to US security, and now, instead of America First, we are America Alone as Trump steers us to alliances with those who would do us harm, in his admiration of countries run by dictatorships of a person or a party who are pariahs of the rest of the world.  

Capitalism cannot be healthy with TACO chaos, and we need population growth; only immigration can supply as our birth rates dip. I do support strong border control and migrant rights, however. The rule of law must rule: it is what foreign investors cherished at one time, and I fear Trump has upended it. I am a supporter of civil rights and in that regard, am closer to libertarians on that issue,, but I believe strongly that government has a role in making our lives fairer and better. 

One thing I did not mention that democratic socialists and I agree on: using the tools of democracy to achieve goals. This is in sharp contrast to Trump and loyalists who condone, forgive, and reward violent overthrow and paramilitary thugs to do the dirty work, whether Jan 6 or ICE. I firmly support an executive branch subject to the separation and balance of powers. Right now, I am a big supporter of the No Kings movement and peaceful mass demonstrations as the best political tool to deal with Trump, a wannabe autocrat. Trump may be a lame duck, but he is a duck with fangs and can do a lot of damage to our democracy in the two and a half years he has left.

Y