The risks of a Democratic war against Trump

Washington, DC, is no stranger to deep political polarisation, especially when one political party wins a divisive election.

Yet even by those standards, the Democratic war beginning to shape up against United States President Donald Trump — with a string of fierce protests, legislative roadblocks, and policy battles — could end up being much fiercer than some had imagined.

The nature and degree of this resistance is not altogether unsurprising, given where the Democrats are as well as how Mr Trump has governed thus far. And the headlines can at times obscure the reality of both a fractured Democratic party and an unconventional administration struggling to deliver on an ambitious agenda.

But what is clear for Democrats is that while resisting Mr Trump brings some irresistible benefits, it also comes with its own tactical and strategic risks that could end up further undermining their fortunes rather than improving them.

Up to this point, the exact depth and breadth of Democratic opposition to Mr Trump had remained unclear.

But the combative tone struck by Democratic leader Senator Chuck Schumer this week was unmistakable, both on the opposition to a list of Mr Trump’s Cabinet picks as well as his Supreme Court nominee.

Meanwhile, Mr Trump’s controversial immigration ban has seen Democratic resistance cohere, with leading Senate Democrats Elizabeth Warren and Corey Booker taking to airports to protest, and even more establishment voices like Mrs Hillary Clinton and the even-tempered former president Barack Obama chiming in.

Though divisions still remain, these developments have already led some to ask whether this could be the beginning of an all-out Democratic war against Mr Trump, and what that could mean.

Much like the Republicans were in 2009 following Mr Obama’s election, the Democrats are now in the wilderness having lost the presidency, the House and Senate, and, potentially, the Supreme Court, all despite the fact that Mrs Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly three million votes.

Little surprise, then, that we are seeing some Democrats use the same limited weapons that Republicans used against Mr Obama during his first few years in office to constrain Mr Trump, be it the slight delaying of certain Cabinet picks or filibustering the new Supreme Court nominee.

The rocky start to Mr Trump’s presidency has only further emboldened more partisan Democrats.

In just the two weeks since his inauguration, which had its own bizarre crowd size debate sideshow, the Trump administration’s desire to hit the ground running on key campaign promises has been drowned out by a chaotic and confused rollout of a new immigration order and the controversial elevation of chief strategist Steve Bannon to the National Security Council.

Meanwhile, a series of protests, including record-setting, nationwide ones during the weekend of Mr Trump’s inauguration, have also intensified calls from within the progressive wing of the Democratic party for the leadership to better harness grassroots energy from the majority of the electorate lest they fan the narrative of a fundamental disconnect between the party and its base.

But the Democratic resistance to Mr Trump also carries risks of its own.

There is the possibility of souring the relationship with the new President, thereby torpedoing chances of getting some things done on a bipartisan basis despite the deep divisions that remain on issues like healthcare and immigration.

Before Mr Trump’s inauguration, Mr Schumer and some other Democrats had hinted that there might be room for bipartisan work with a president who is less ideologically inclined than traditional Republicans, including on infrastructure and tax reform. But frustrating Mr Trump’s agenda so early on could prevent Democrats from shaping it in ways that would further their own interests.

That is all the more likely given the clear line this President draws between his allies and adversaries.

Apart from lost opportunities, a partisan war against Mr Trump could also strengthen the challenge he poses not only to Democrats, but the nation as a whole.

Mr Trump’s proclivity for authoritarianism has already fanned fears of executive overreach, institutional damage, and constitutional crisis.

By frustrating Mr Trump’s agenda in the legislature and obstructing his Supreme Court nominee, the argument goes, would Democrats not be merely abetting this tendency?

Up to this point, Mr Trump’s most extreme response to Democratic resistance has been to give Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell the green light to “go nuclear” and change the rules of the Senate to ram his Supreme Court nomination through, an option that may ultimately not be required.

But if he sees gridlock persisting, some fear Mr Trump could resort to more destructive, corrosive tactics, including riling up his fringe supporters and inciting violence.

Democrats could then find themselves being held culpable for or complicit in a further radicalisation of Trump supporters as a result of their obstructionism.

More broadly, the wisdom of an all-out war against Mr Trump so early on may be questionable when Democrats have not even agreed on their own comeback strategy after the 2016 presidential election and ahead of the 2018 mid-term elections.

Mrs Clinton’s surprising and stinging defeat last November has deepened fissures within the establishment and progressive wings of the party.

The party had witnessed steep losses at the state and federal level during Mr Obama’s two terms as well and is left with an ageing leadership with no unifying voice.

Without addressing big-picture questions, the risk is that plunging head first into battle with Mr Trump could not only be ineffective, but counterproductive.

Democrats would wage a war that would initially paper over divisions that would eventually become evident, making them look like weak opponents to be picked off in the eyes of Mr Trump and his Republican allies and feckless defenders in the minds of Democratic voters.

Waging an ineffective war against Mr Trump while not making peace among themselves could not only just undermine Democratic fortunes in the 2018 mid-terms, but also lead to disunity ahead of the 2020 elections that may hand the Republicans a second term.

The fierce battle between Mrs Clinton and Mr Bernie Sanders during the Democratic primary, which left Mrs Clinton badly bruised, was an early warning about the kind of divisions that could continue to haunt the party.

Some would argue that these risks for Democrats may be overstated, perhaps even misdiagnosed.

There are limits to what even Mr Trump can do, and perhaps a war with the President is exactly what the Democratic party needs to unite.

Others may contend that these risks are worth taking given what Mr Trump represents.

But few would deny that the political realities of an all-out Democratic war against the President are much more complex than the moral clarity that often laces the rhetoric of the fiercest partisans.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Prashanth Parameswaran is Associate Editor at The Diplomat Magazine based in Washington, D.C., where he writes extensively about US foreign policy in the Asia-Pacific, Asian security affairs, and Southeast Asia. He is also a doctoral candidate at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.