White Power – The Dispatch

The strongest argument for the Avenatti view, I think, is that the party badly requires a rebrand. Like, badly.

Earlier this month an NBC News poll put Democrats’ favorability rating at 30-52, a worse net rating than Trump, ICE, even AI. In the midst of an unpopular war, spiking gas prices, and widespread economic discontent, the ruling Republican Party still polls marginally better (35-53) than its Democratic opponent (31-56) per the latest survey from Quinnipiac. In data collected by YouGov last fall, the only Democrat in the country still active in politics whom more than half of respondents viewed positively is Sen. Bernie Sanders. And he’s not actually a Democrat.

Practically everyone hates Democrats. Including Democrats.

It’s no mystery why, either: Americans think the left is too weak and too woke. Democrats’ ambivalence about cracking down on crime and illegal immigration and their enthusiasm for trans rights have created a cultural gap with normies that might sink the party again in 2028 if it isn’t bridged. The persuadable voter craves reassurance that Democrats can and will be “tough.”

Let’s face it, that reassurance will probably be more convincing coming from a straight, white, possibly Christian man.

That’s what Avenatti meant about arguments carrying “more weight,” I think. In a culture that’s used to associating authority with straight white guys, a pivot toward being tough on crime and the border and more skeptical of trans causes will be easier to believe coming from Andy Beshear or Josh Shapiro than from Kamala Harris or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In fact, the right demographic profile can make a Democrat seem more moderate even if he isn’t actually pivoting: Look no further than Texas Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico, a dogmatic progressive who passes for an electable centrist due in part to his race, sex, and outspoken Christian faith.

And so the white guys have a leg up in selling the rebrand that liberals urgently need, especially in light of the demographics of Democratic presidential nominees over the past 20 years. As strange as it is to assert that a straight, white, Christian man would represent a break from political tradition, only once since 2004 have Democrats nominated someone with that profile. The broad stereotype of the party (which feeds perceptions that it’s too compassionate in addressing social ills) is that it takes its policy cues from women, gays, and minorities. Having a straight white guy as nominee would scramble that.

“But that’s identity politics,” you might say, “and liberals learned the hard way in 2024 that identity politics doesn’t work.”

Yes and no. Certainly, they learned that identity politics isn’t enough to keep nonwhites voting Democratic overwhelmingly after years of high inflation under a Democratic administration. But the lesson of the Trump era can’t possibly be that identity politics is dead. Almost the opposite: Never before in my lifetime has the Republican base shown as much white racial consciousness as it does now, after 10 years of postliberalism. The “woke right” is not a mirage.

In an America in which right-leaning whites are, to a greater degree than in the past, just another racial bloc, it probably helps to have a nominee from that bloc atop the Democratic Party.

The white guys have another unfair advantage related to what I said above about authority.

We live in a new post-constitutional reality in which “Congress more or less doesn’t exist, except as a social media operation.” And as much as we’d all like to imagine victorious Democrats sweeping into power in 2029 with a good-government agenda to fix that, the cynical probability is that they’ll try to exploit the executive power that Trump has amassed. (Although presumably to a lesser degree than he did.)

By 2028, many American voters will have adjusted their expectations for how the federal government should operate in accordance with our current “soft autocracy.” Once they’ve accepted that they’re voting for a Caesar who’ll rule mostly by diktat rather than the head of a co-equal branch who’ll routinely bargain with the legislature, they’ll prioritize autocratic qualities in how they vote—“strength” and resolve, say, over flexibility and persuasion—more than they already do.

Who’s more likely to fit the bill for an electorate clamoring for a Caesar, a nonwhite woman or a straight white man?

There’s a practical problem lurking in all of this, meanwhile. If you think Democrats shouldn’t nominate a straight white Christian man in 2028, whom do you suggest they nominate?

With Michelle Obama uninterested in running, the party has no truly top-tier woman candidate. Harris lost in the last cycle and has demonstrated poor political instincts throughout her career. Ocasio-Cortez is too far left to win a national election. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has suffered from being too chummy with Trump and might retire after her term ends. Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger and Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin are promising yet bland centrists who would enter a crowded primary field with comparatively low national profiles.

Pete Buttigieg is the most prominent gay politician in the country, but he struggles with black voters, a key primary bloc, and his technocratic egghead persona is a weird fit for a lowbrow populist era defined by working-class concerns. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker have the “straight white guy” boxes checked—but they’re both Jewish, potentially a tough sell in a party as hostile to Israel as Democrats have become.

And maybe a tough sell generally. If we’re going to play identity politics ruthlessly in choosing a Democratic nominee, the fact that America is becoming more antisemitic has to matter, no?

Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore are straight nonwhite Christian men, but all have a ways to go to build a national constituency. None has a political “brand” as distinct as, say, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a (very) straight (very) white guy.

Which leaves us … where? Are we forced to concede that Democrats should—gulp—heed the advice of convicted felon Michael Avenatti?

Maybe not. There are reasons to doubt the supposed advantages of the straight white Christian male candidate.

In the first place, the narrative about Trump faring poorly against men and faring well against women is overbaked.

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 and probably would have won the presidency if not for James Comey’s eleventh-hour deus ex machina. Four years later, Joe Biden had the great good luck of challenging an incumbent saddled with a once-in-a-century pandemic and he still managed to win only barely in swing states despite polls predicting a national blowout.

In 2024, Harris held Trump under 50 percent in the popular vote and made the battlegrounds competitive despite inflation not seen in generations during Biden’s presidency and a complete abdication of duty in securing the border. She almost certainly received more votes on Election Day than Biden himself, visibly addled by age, would have.

It’s bad enough that anyone would draw hard conclusions from just three elections. Worse is drawing hard conclusions from three tight elections that could have gone either way if the loser had received a single lucky break from global events.

That’s especially true when you remember that Harris didn’t lose because of white voters. She won 42 percent of that group, according to exit polls, a higher percentage than Barack Obama received when he took 39 percent of whites en route to reelection in 2012. It was her much smaller margins among nonwhites—African Americans, Latinos, and Asians—amid the lingering affordability crisis that produced Trump’s narrow victory. If Democrats intend to try to identity-politics their way back to power in 2028, a straight, white, Christian man is not the obvious demographic profile to woo those wayward voters back.

Let’s also remember that Democrats won’t be facing Trump in 2028. (Again, I think.)

In all likelihood they’ll be facing J.D. Vance, whose servility toward the president somewhat obscures the fact that the two cut very different figures as politicians. In particular, and almost needless to say, Vance is not the domineering, charismatic alpha male that Trump is.

The case for Democrats nominating a straight white Christian man is premised on the idea that there’s something in the American lizard brain that instinctively prefers having a gorilla as commander in chief of the military. But if the Republican nominee is more spider monkey than silverback, nominating a gorilla of their own logically should be less of a priority for liberals.

All the more so if that spider monkey campaigns as a skeptic of foreign intervention, as Vance will surely do barring some miraculously favorable outcome for America in Iran. Unable to project power through his persona, as his boss does, and reluctant to project it through military force, the vice president won’t get the same benefit of the doubt from voters about his relative “strength” as Republicans typically receive. Nominating someone who’s gay, female, and/or nonwhite becomes less risky for Democrats when the GOP’s candidate looks “weak” too.

At the rate we’re going, it might even be an advantage. The Spanberger administration might be bland, but after four years of chaotic Trump insanity voters might appreciate not having to wonder hour by hour whether, say, we’re about to pull out of NATO.

As for the Democratic field that’s shaping up in 2028, it’s true that the party has no top-tier woman candidates. But I’m not sure it has any top-tier straight, white, Christian men either.

The last time liberals tried to pander to white men was when the Harris campaign put Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz on the ticket, a decision seen in hindsight as somewhere between a failure and a disaster. Try as they might to play up Walz’s rural roots and blue-collar pedigree, Democrats couldn’t get men excited about a progressive who seemed to embody middle-aged beta-male dadhood. Walz was meant to be “just like us”—the supposed core appeal of straight white guys to middle America—but he wasn’t.

Gov. Hair Gel from California is an alpha male, at least, but he’s the opposite of “just like us” to anyone except Bond villains and even more ardent in his progressivism than Walz is. Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear has Clinton-esque southern Democratic centrist appeal but isn’t well known nationally and will be viewed with deep suspicion by the progressive base. Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly has gotten buzz for his squabbles with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, but I wonder how he’d perform if forced to compete for the spotlight with more charismatic candidates like Newsom.

All of which is to say that straight, white, Christian Democratic men are by no means world-beaters relative to everyone else. One could argue that Harris, for all her flaws, would be more formidable than Newsom because of her potential to consolidate the black vote and possibly reclaim nonwhite voters who rolled the dice on Trump in 2024 and now wish they’d opted for her. Or, with a little creativity, one could theorize that their Jewish faith is actually a hidden strength for Shapiro or Pritzker: If either were to position himself as a harsh critic of Israel, Democrats might like the idea of having a leader whose religion would shield them (to some degree) from accusations of antisemitism as they tilt further against the Jewish state.

There’s one more thing to remember about 2028, though.

In 2008, America was led by an extremely unpopular two-term Republican whose presidency was widely seen as a failure. Perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not, the Democratic primary that year came down to two candidates who were radically different demographically from traditional presidential nominees, one a black man and the other a white woman.

The left hungered for meaningful change, knew it was primed to win the general election, and seemingly concluded that it needn’t bother with a “safe” electable candidate for president this time.

In 2028, it’s quite likely that America will be led by an extremely unpopular two-term Republican whose presidency is widely seen as a failure. The left will again be hungry for dramatic change. And again, with good reason, it will feel confident about its chances in the general election.

Why would Democrats bother with a “safe” electable candidate like a straight, white, Christian man in those circumstances instead of embracing Americans’ desire for a fresh start with someone radically different?

It’s not just Trump’s dismal record in office that will ensure the next cycle is a “change” election. The country will have just seen two consecutive presidents leave office in their 80s, further whetting the public appetite for fresh blood. And artificial intelligence, a novel issue, will have come to influence American culture and politics in stupendous and unpredictable ways. As voters increasingly sense that they live in a brave new world, old-world signifiers of political trustworthiness—straight, white, Christian, male—might understandably matter to them less.

Democrats played it safe electorally in 2020 to try to finish off Trump and ended up five years later with their brand in ruins, Trump back in the White House, and the United States facing a real risk of another fascist coup attempt before 2029. If the economic crisis from the war deepens and compounds that disappointment, many will conclude that there’s nothing left to lose by trying something radically new in 2028, that “different” at this point can only mean “better.”

Tough break for the straight, white, Christian guys. But they had a good (or long, at least) run!