Operating From Fear Never Works: Dem Leadership Needs To Be Replaced.

I cannot tell you how many times I have said some version of the following in the last year:

“Schumer has always been timid. While NY is a hard to place to represent with all the various constituencies, he is also fully corporatized, owned by AIPAC and is not leading; he is hiding and simply operating from fear.”

“Jeffries is particularly disappointing for different reasons, in that, I have witnessed him being a strong leader in the past and yet, now he refuses. He is fully controlled by AIPAC and corporate America. He is also operating from fear and cannot see voters and the country have evolved quickly in the last two years. Avoidance and occasionally lightly pushing back is not leadership.”

I will also say, I appreciate and thank them both for their service. It is a ridiculously hard job. I have no issue with them staying in office as members, if NY voters feel they are doing a good job for their district/state, but they should no longer be in leadership. I will let the NY people decide who they want in NY to represent them.

Remember, in terms of their roles in leadership, the Speaker and Senate Leader roles are voted on by their colleagues, members of Congress in each chamber. American voters cannot vote on leadership roles in Congress, although I wish they could. I hope those bodies are bold and rethink leadership.

What I do know for sure is that there are dozens of folks in the House and Senate ready and able to take over for Schumer and Jeffries. There is a deep bench.

Fear begets fear and creates paralysis. Fear is not a strategy, it is a default mechanism. I have been a CEO, an elected official and nonprofit leader, there is one thing I know for certain (and really nothing else), when one operates from fear, you lose your critical thinking, passion, innovation, ideas and energy. Everything dies in fear’s wake.

We simply, as a party, cannot go on this way.

What Do Dem Leaders Fear?

Donors

Dem leaders fear if they pass any transformative bill that affects donors’ personal money and/or wishes, such as taxing billionaires, Medicare for all, increase the minimum wage, getting money out of politics or ending unconditional aid to Israel, billionaires will stop funding them.

Who are these donors Schumer and Jeffries rely on?:

• AIPAC

• Mega Donors

• Corporate PACs

You may ask: Well if they need the money to get folks elected, how can they stop appeasing them? They have to keep appeasing them, right?

Answer: No, not if we end super PACs, independent expenditures, corporate PACs and foreign lobby PACs, they won’t have to worry about any of these folks. We do not need to end Citizen’s United, we can address most of the donor problem through legislations such as the Drain The Swamp Act or Anti-Corruption Act.

Further, if we pass public financing of campaigns, we all will benefit. That should be agenda item #1.

The Pattern “What Will X, Y, or Z say” Form of Paralysis

Most recently the clearest “wimp-out” from Dem leaders was when they absolutely refused to strongly denounce this war of choice in Iran. Instead of directly and clearly voicing the immorality of the war, the costs and the toxic impact, they weaseled it. Various congress members have denounced it frequently and fully, but leadership is living in fear, and did not provide a full-throated denouncement, because God forbid “somebody might not like it.“

Reminder, well more than 2/3 of this nation disapproves of this war.

Dem Leaders: Read the room.

Walk into any Democratic strategy session in Washington, and you’ll notice something peculiar. The conversation rarely starts with “Here’s what we want to accomplish.” Instead, it begins with “What will Republicans say?” or “How will this play in swing districts?” This defensive crouch has become the party’s default position, and it’s costing them dearly.

Fear-based politics isn’t new, but Democratic leadership has elevated it to an art form. They’re so worried about GOP attacks, losing a small group of mythical “moderate” voters that do not exist, and triggering conservative media that they’ve forgotten how to play offense. The result? A party that controls significant power but acts like it’s perpetually on the verge of collapse, whether they are in the minority or majority.

The Messaging Vacuum

Consider the student loan forgiveness debate. President Biden spent months agonizing over the decision, finally announcing a limited relief plan in 2022. Instead of boldly defending it as economic stimulus that helps working families, Democrats immediately went into damage control mode. They worried about seeming too progressive. They fretted about alienating voters without college degrees. They parsed every word. And, the same leaders were too chicken to offer free community job training, vocational education and community college to offset those concerns.

Republicans, meanwhile, had no such hesitation. They attacked it as unfair, unconstitutional, and inflationary. Their message was clear, repeated constantly, and didn’t require focus groups. When the Supreme Court struck it down, Democrats had barely established why the program mattered in the first place.

The contrast is stark. Republicans spent decades building toward overturning Roe v. Wade, never wavering, never apologizing. Democrats? They’ve spent the years since Dobbs tentatively trying to figure out a way to get women’s rights back.

The Compromise Trap

I’m just going to say it:

Republicans dream big, act big and implement big.

Democrats dilute, ask for all kinds of permissions, poll-test to death, compromise beyond recognition, water it down some more and then pretend there is a mythical fairyland called the “center” that will like it.

Democratic leadership treats compromise as a virtue in itself, not a tool for achieving goals. Take the infrastructure negotiations of 2021. Biden started with a $2.3 trillion proposal, immediately signaled willingness to negotiate, and ended up with a $1.2 trillion package. Before Republicans even made a counteroffer, Democrats were negotiating with themselves.

The bill passed and contained good provisions. But here’s the problem: voters don’t remember what you fought for—they remember what you delivered. And when you’re so afraid of overreaching that you preemptively scale back your own ambitions, you guarantee underwhelming results.

Yes, compromise is necessary in government, but we cannot start with diluted, compromised positions or we are doomed to fail.

The Progressive Dilemma

Nothing illustrates Democratic leadership’s fear more clearly than their relationship with the party’s progressive wing. Rather than integrating popular progressive policies—Medicare expansion, marijuana legalization, aggressive climate action—into a coherent vision, leadership treats progressives like an embarrassing relative at Thanksgiving.

Even though, the Democratic base has more progressives in it than any other Democratic flavor.

When progressives championed Medicare for All or the Green New Deal, leadership didn’t engage with the substance. They didn’t say “great energy, let’s work on this together.” Instead, they distanced themselves, worried about seeming too radical. Never mind that polling showed strong support, meaning more than half of America wanted it.

The calculation is always the same: Don’t scare moderates. Don’t give Republicans ammunition. Don’t rock the boat. But this approach leaves Democrats with no boat at all—just a collection of politicians treading water, hoping not to drown.

The real problem, is 45% of the nation is independent, 27% is Dem and 27% is Republican. Independents are not centrists but do often believe in progressive legislation.

The sooner Dem leadership understands independents and Dems want urgent solutions and stop operating from fear, the better.

What This Means Going Forward

Operating from fear creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. When you act scared, you look weak. When you look weak, voters lose confidence. When voters lose confidence, you lose elections. When you lose elections, your fears were justified all along.

And, of course there is truth to Dem communications could be better. But first things first, any organizational expert will say, “get your goals and operations for implementation down and then, refine the communications.” All of it needs work.

Bold politics involves risk. But the real risk is becoming so paralyzed by fear that you stand for nothing bold enough to inspire anyone. Nobody likes a watered down drink.

That is all to say, unless Schumer and Jeffries do a mea culpa and end their fear-induced paralysis, they give Americans no other choice, but demand they be replaced.

Thank you for all you do,

M

P.S. If this was interesting or helpful, please give it a share or like. Or, consider a paid subscription