March 7, 2025

Opinion: A third way for congressional Democrats

Author: Steven Pearlstein

Program: Fixing Congress

Office: Penn Washington

Some Democrats believe the only viable strategy for slowing and eventually halting the Trump steamroller is all-out resistance on every issue in every forum.

Others prefer giving Trump plenty of rope, confident they will pursue radical policies that will prove so unpopular that Republicans will lose the next two elections.

The first approach is likely to prove morally gratifying but largely ineffective (see this week’s drama at Trump’s address to the joint session of Congress). The second will not only be morally unsatisfying but runs the risk of the country will suffer serious economic, political, and constitutional damage before the political worm finally turns.

So Democrats might consider a third strategy: restoring Congress as an effective check on a runaway presidency by empowering Republican “moderates.”

I realize there is good reason to be skeptical – so far, Republican moderates have offered a profile in cowardice. Their problem is that they are faced with two lousy options: either fall in line behind Trump 100 percent or face the certain prospect of political ostracization, months of social media bullying, and a well-funded primary opponent in 2026. What they lack is a politically attractive middle ground and the imagination and courage to create one.

That’s where Democrats could play a constructive role.

Imagine a group of Democratic moderates approaching eight to ten Republicans in each chamber and offering to help them temper some of the worst aspects of the Trump agenda.

• Tax cuts for the rich and big corporations that are unfair, unnecessary, and unaffordable.
• Spending cuts in popular programs that go too far.
• Programs or departments that could be reformed rather than shuttered.
• Paring payrolls more selectively than simply firing all those hired or reassigned in the last year.
• Setting limits on the president’s power to ignore appropriations, ignore Congress on arms sales, or set tariffs levels for every country and every category of goods on a whim.
• Reaffirming support for Ukraine.

Such discussions would need to be initiated not by party leaders but by backbenchers with the instincts and political freedom to compromise.

And Democrats would also need to understand any compromises that emerge from such discussions would be distinctly one-sided, giving more than they are getting. Remember, the criteria for judging them isn’t whether they are fair. The right question to ask is whether, by providing the necessary votes to take up and adopt such moderating alternatives, Democrats could rob Trump of his momentum and his aura of invincibility, open a gaping hole in Republican unity, and generate less bad policy outcomes for the country and their constituents. Under the circumstances, that would be a good day at the office.

As our theatrically minded president understands all too well, in the politics of this moment momentum is everything. One such victory over Trump and the hardliners would likely lead to a second and then a third, each one helping to shift the focus away from tribal loyalty in favor of a genuine national debate on the issues that favors Democrats.

And with each win, even more Republican members would be emboldened to consider voting their districts or their consciences rather than their party. Before long, you might actually have something that Americans haven’t seen for decades – an open and deliberative legislative process that generates policy outcomes that a solid majority of Americans support.

To lure Republican moderates into taking such a risk, Democrats would likely have to offer more than just a willingness to hold their noses and vote for things they dislike. Some political sweeteners may be required as well: a promise not to surreptitiously support primary challengers in the next election, as they have in the past, or an offer not to finance a strong challenge if the Republican decides to opt out of the Republican primary and run as an independent.

Democratic members have been socialized by their leaders to reject such bipartisan collaboration out of hand based on fears it would anger the party base, undermine Democratic unity, and have apocalyptic consequences for the country and the world. Most are determined to avoid any complicity in what might be viewed as even a partial victory for a Republican president and Republican colleagues whose policies and tactics they view as despicable.

But the harsh reality is that, for most Democrats, it is hard to imagine anything more apocalyptic than what they are experiencing now. With the stakes so high and no other credible options available, maybe it’s time to start thinking outside the partisan box.

Trump’s most glaring vulnerability is that his party is held together by bullying rather than conviction, pursuing policies most Americans don’t like and never asked for. The best way for Democrats to exploit that vulnerability is to give those being bullied a way to break free of the suffocating tyranny of party unity and offer voters something better.

Steven Pearlstein is a Senior Fellow at Penn Washington. He is also the Robinson Professor of Public Affairs at George Mason University and a former Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the Washington Post. The views expressed here are his own.