The Corporate Centrists Cannot Hold: 'Big Tent' Democrats Cave Once More

Wow, seriously? The Democrats are caving yet again? What was all that suffering and harm for, those 40-plus days of anxiety and uncertainty, all the lost Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, jobs, and income, the swelling lines at food banks and unemployment offices? After all that, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer enables a centrist cave-in by corporate Democrats, right as President Donald Trump and Republicans acknowledge they are “getting killed” politically by the shutdown and the erasure of essential benefits?

Democrats and progressives everywhere are shouting and screaming—WTF! And rightly so.

Just a week ago, the Democrats appeared ascendant, having run the electoral table on November 4. The “abundance” crowd was agog about the party’s “Big Tent” coalition, ranging from a democratic socialist mayor in New York City to centrist wins in Virginia and New Jersey. Now, that tent has caved, precisely because it is too big and lacks any core pillars. To paraphrase the great Joan Didion, the center cannot (and did not) hold.

Most of what I’d call the Enabling Eight who spearheaded the Democrats’ cave-in are established centrists or about to retire. Sens. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), and Angus King (I-Maine) are all center-right politicians who might as well be “moderate” Republicans. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) proclaimed that these cave-in enablers chose “principle over their personal politics”—but it’s likely the opposite. None of the senators who were likely deputized to vote Yes are up for reelection, most are in swing states, and put their political calculus above the principle of protecting healthcare for millions of Americans.

As Jeet Heer summed up in The Nation: “At a moment when the elections had left Republicans on the ropes, Democrats caved in exchange for a couple of months of government funding and a vote on healthcare that they are bound to lose, if Republicans even hold one. It’s hard to see that as much of a deal at all.” By agreeing to the capitulation, that handful of centrist Democratic Senators “are validating the cynical view that the shutdown was simply a stunt to hurt Republicans in the off-cycle elections.”

From the Mamdani miracle in New York City on November 4 to the Enabling Eight in the US Senate just six days later, the Democratic Party’s huge internal contradictions have been on full display.

Adding further injury to the insult, Robert Reich pointed out, “There’s no guarantee that Trump’s White House will go along. In fact, it’s clear that the White House will dig in on all sorts of programs Democrats support.” Now that they’ve willingly erased their own leverage, Democrats have zero bargaining power on anything. In the name of ending the harm of the shutdown, they voluntarily squandered their one shot at forcing Republican concessions and lessening harm to millions of Americans. It’s not only shameful, but also downright bizarre and pathetic.

You could see the Democrats’ cave coming from a mile away. Not only have they caved so many times before—there was never a clear winnable strategy, beyond punishing Republicans politically for their attacks on healthcare, food stamps, and other essential human life supports. The Democrats exacted their little pound of flesh with some hopeful wins on November 4—then they folded up their tent and squandered whatever inspirational energy and momentum those wins gained.

Sunday, as news of the collapse broke over social media, former Ohio state Rep. Nina Turner crystallized it cogently: “Tonight is a glaring reminder that gerrymandering this spineless party into power isn’t a viable fight for democracy. It further erodes democracy while allowing Democrats in Congress to have even less of a backbone. Fight for fair maps. Organize the working class.”

Indeed, the cave-in reveals the precarity of the Democrats’ generally tepid and wavering resistance. Even when they have resisted, it’s been tactical and lacking any inspiring core principles. There is a real danger in the Democrats relying on gerrymandering, redistricting, and performative “resistance” that sells out both constituents and principles. Voters and activists must keep demanding a party that inspires, engages, and mobilizes working-class power. Don’t let unprincipled, unreliable centrism be the Democrats’ “Big Tent” pillar.

The Democratic Party has proven itself unable and unwilling to be a real opposition party. When the “opposition party” keeps flailing and failing, what do we do? Just keep electing more of them? Plow yet more time, energy, money, heart, and soul into a party that continues to squander it all?

Is this the “end of the Democrats” as a Newsweek column surmised? Certainly not in the immediate term—but it’s yet another final straw for many. At the very moment that Democrats seemed, at last, ready to stand up and fight the hideously fascistic Trump administration, and just as they seized momentum and some political capital, they threw it down the drain.

Indivisible, which has been reliably supportive of Democrats, is sounding the alarm, “launching the biggest Democratic primary program we’ve ever run,” cofounder Ezra Levin announced, adding, “The only path to a real opposition party is through a cleansing primary season.” That fight has already begun with fast-spreading calls for Schumer to step aside as Senate minority leader and will rapidly pick up steam as more candidates jump into the fray.

The same energy and exasperation with the establishment that powered Mamdani to victory is now erupting over the Democrats’ cave.

Even one of the more prominent November 4 victories is problematic and should cause us to demand better. California’s Prop. 50, essentially a voter-approved temporary redistricting to counter Texas’ less-democratic gerrymandering, while perhaps necessary in the moment, is merely a tactical move that offers voters nothing beyond electoral chess or checkers. The party needs to embrace a bold, economic populist vision and program that can inspire and mobilize working-class, middle-class, and lower-income voters—something substantially more than just defending a foundering healthcare system and food assistance that barely keeps people going.

Tactical redistricting and fighting to preserve a fragile and insufficient status quo cannot be the Democrats’ calling cards. It’s time for another progressive uprising within and beyond the Democratic Party. Remember Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) “political revolution?” It seems a distant memory amid the necessary, urgent focus on combating Trump’s vicious and vile fascism and racism.

Zohran Mamdani’s remarkable victory in New York City has reignited progressive hopes nationwide. Polling shows Mamdani’s policies resonate far beyond the Big Apple. In a recent YouGov survey of voters nationwide, 69% supported raising taxes on corporations and millionaires; 66% supported implementing free childcare for every child ages 6 weeks to 5 years; 65% supported freezing rent for lower-income tenants; and 56% supported raising the minimum wage to $30 by 2030.

A “big tent” may sound nice and may be necessary up to a point—every winning campaign involves a coalition, not just a core base—but it depends on who the tent is for and how big and broad it is. Stretched too wide and thin, lacking a core foundation, a “big tent” can easily collapse when its pillars are so malleable.

This problem goes beyond the shutdown and affects the identity of the party itself. When you have a party with such vast disagreements within it, ranging from fiscal conservatives and neoliberals to progressives—what does the party stand for, beyond the most basic notions of democracy? How can the party stand for and with working-class people when many of its leaders promote policies that alienate those voters?

In the short-term, it may be enough for the Democrats to unite around protecting democracy and the Constitution, but that will not be a lasting coalition unless the party offers real economic solutions and vision. On economic policy, the differences between democratic socialists and corporate neoliberals or fiscal conservatives are nearly as wide as those with the GOP. We are talking about the difference between whether we tax corporations and the rich fairly to address poverty, homelessness, hunger, and other critical human needs. We are talking about the difference between a healthcare plan that enables corporate profits and one that prioritizes human needs.

In the space of one week, we’ve seen the perils of the Democrats’ ill-defined, precariously erected “Big Tent.” From the Mamdani miracle in New York City on November 4 to the Enabling Eight in the US Senate just six days later, the Democratic Party’s huge internal contradictions have been on full display. Whether or how these contradictions get resolved, and for whose benefit, remains an open question and an ongoing battle. As the midterms hurtle closer, we should be wary of re-erecting a Democratic tent whose wobbly center cannot hold.

On the more hopeful side of this ledger, there is a political wildfire afoot nationwide—some are calling it a Democratic “Tea” Party. Millions are fed up, not only with Trump but with the stultifying Democratic establishment. The same energy and exasperation with the establishment that powered Mamdani to victory is now erupting over the Democrats’ cave. The surging energies of the 7 million people who marched nationwide in the latest “No Kings” protests have intensified pressure on the Democrats to mount a more serious and sustained resistance to Trump. While the cave has collapsed the party’s momentary momentum, it could now give rise to greater progressive uprising and a rebellion tilting toward that political revolution.

One can, and should, hope.