Democrats love to talk about “fighting.” In the months since we lost, I’ve heard it over and over again: The fight goes on. Keep up the fight. When we fight, we win. We need fighters—the people who will fight back.
It’s a great word for this moment. It’s active, assertive, and powerful, in a time when it’s easy to feel powerless. It is a rallying cry when, bafflingly, there are prominent Democrats who would prefer to do nothing.
It is also, unfortunately, too often empty. When Democrats talk about fighting, they do not always have a theory of victory—an idea for how the fight will lead to the outcome we want. Without one, “fighting” is meaningless.
What would a theory of victory look like? Start with the avenues citizens have for fighting:
Congress
Our options are limited. For the moment, Republicans have majorities in both houses, taking many options for resistance off the table. Even if we win majorities in 2026, we may not be able to do much to hold the President back. Trump does not have a significant legislative agenda, because he is working instead through illegal executive action; in fact, he is exploring ways to usurp Congress’s authority. Opposing his appointments is a limited lever, since he is perfectly willing to let people work outside of official appointments. Congress can hold hearings or investigations, but this administration would likely simply decline to participate, and what could Democrats do to compel them? As for impeachment: he’s already been impeached twice. Maybe the third time would be the charm, but I wouldn’t count on it.
Courts
There are already countless lawuits against the administration, and there will be countless more. Even assuming that every judge behaves with integrity (a weak assumption), it will take years for cases to reach their conclusions, by which time the damage will be done and the administration will have moved on to the next set of abuses. A legal system designed for exhaustive due process will strain to keep up, in pace and in volume, with an administration designed to flood the zone. Even when courts do issue orders, the administration has already shown that it is willing to ignore them, as when it laughingly brushed off one from the Supreme Court. That’s when cases even make it to court: the administration’s intimidation campaign against lawyers makes it less likely for cases checking its power to get strong representation. And Trump always has the pardon power, and is willing to use it to excuse his people from liability.
Protest and public opinion
An administration that joyfully inflicts pain on the public, and particularly the most vulnerable—even many who voted for them—does not care if we are angry with them. In fact, an administration of trolls revels in protest. There have been marches and rallies and protests all over America in response to the past 100 days of devastation, and I don’t believe there is evidence that they have moved the administration an inch.
Of course, we must fight in all the ways above. I’ve painted a bleak picture, but we will score some victories, and these will matter deeply to the people affected. Just as importantly, the act of fighting builds solidarity and morale, and staves off the hopelessness that threatens to wash over the nation. Sen. Booker’s marathon speech had no direct, practical impact, but as an inspiration to millions of Americans, it was invaluable. The point of the above is not that we shouldn’t fight, but that all of the avenues for fighting above will not stop an administration that operates outside of the law, or in fact is actively tearing down the law. There is no theory of victory.
But we do have a final avenue:
Elections
We can weaken Republican hold in Congress and in state government, and in 2028 we can put a Democrat back in the White House. This president has tried to steal an election before, but that is one constitutional violation he has not yet pulled off. And we must go further than that, since we know now that MAGA can survive an election defeat. We must defeat and discredit it not for one or two cycles, but for a generation. That is a fight with a theory of victory. To my mind, it is the only one.
The debate Democrats should be having is not whether to fight, but how to win this particular fight. If we are not thinking through how to win persuadable voters in critical battlegrounds, if we are not talking about making the swing states blue and putting the red states in play, we are not serious about resisting. I don’t believe that means a craven swing to the center; I believe it is possible, though difficult, to lead and to persuade without selling out our values. But defiantly refusing to learn the lessons of the last ten years and retreating into our base is a plan for failure. That is the plan that many Democrats seem to be embracing, and particularly those most vocally calling for the party to grow a backbone and fight.
These are the risks of “fighting” – first, that we invest too much energy in avenues where we will have limited effect at the expense of the one where we can win, and second, that we conflate determination to win with an inflexible commitment to our platform. Each time I hear an official or candidate demanding that Democrats do more to fight while presenting a platform that cannot win—again, not for a cycle or two, but for a generation—I see a party that does not yet understand its assignment.