As the Democratic Party struggles to adapt to the second Trump administration, it is also plagued by infighting, much of it involving attempts to move it further to the left. President Biden failed to cultivate a political heir (it now seems that he was not particularly close to Vice President Harris) or establish an ideologically coherent base, and his administration was viewed poorly by the public. Many Democrats simply want him to go away. 

Despite President Trump’s polarizing and controversial actions, approval of the Democratic Party, “the only organized resistance to Trump” (as an AP story described it), is the lowest it has been in decades. It is counting on the historical pattern that the party outside the White House wins seats in the midterms, but there are few other bright spots for the party. In Florida, once a swing state, the party is in free fall. 

While polling shows that more Democrats want the party to move to the center, there have been growing calls among activists that the party must adopt a more progressive stance, more aggressively confront the Trump administration and find younger leaders. The Free Press, the online publication co-founded by Bari Weiss, recently profiled an array of Democratic congressional candidates in this mold.

Some moderate or long-serving Democrats in Congress are already facing primary challenges in 2026, including Marie Gluesenkamp Perez in Washington State, as well as Brad Sherman and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, both in California. During his brief tenure as a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, David Hogg announced his intention to fund such primary challengers, which garnered a quick rebuff from the rest of the D.N.C. But another Democrat in Congress, Representative Ro Khanna of California, announced his support for Mr. Hogg’s plans, saying the party needs a new generation of leaders.

The most prominent example of such a candidate is Zohran Mamdani, the state assemblyman and member of the Democratic Socialists of America who won the Democratic nomination for mayor of New York in June. One should be cautious about drawing too many conclusions from Mr. Mamdani’s likely victory in November, however. Against scandal-plagued former Governor Andrew Cuomo, first in the Democratic primary and now in the general election (with Mr. Cuomo running as an independent), Mr. Mamdani has simply run the better campaign. Focused on the “bread and butter” issue of housing, Mr. Mamdani has projected positivity and a vision for the future.

The question is whether a shift to the left would work at the national level. While Americans across the political spectrum are angry about income inequality, health care costs and corporate power, the social agenda of the left remains unpopular. 

In an interview with The Free Press, Delia Ramirez, a Democratic congresswoman from Chicago and a member of “the Squad” (an unofficial group of progressive and socialist members of Congress) said it was the failure of the party to “fight like hell” that cost them the election last year, but her specific recommendations mostly amount to moving the party to the left. Ms. Ramirez believes that Democrats would have won if they had banned “dark money,” extended civil rights laws to apply to the transgender community and broadened the eligibility for health care benefits to include undocumented immigrants. 

There is little reason to think any of these measures would have helped. A ban on dark money is unlikely to pass muster with the current Supreme Court; and at any rate, dark money has been very helpful to Democrats. Extending federal civil rights laws to the transgender community would have only inflamed the debate on gender (it would immediately raise questions regarding women’s-only spaces) which many Democrats now view as a liability. 

Finally, the perceived weakness of Democrats on immigration was one of the major reasons for Mr. Trump’s victory. With many Americans believing that the government does not do enough for them, the idea of giving benefits to people not here legally would have infuriated large segments of the electorate and been a boon for the G.O.P. In last year’s election, Kamala Harris was particularly haunted by two proposals she supported during her 2020 presidential campaign: decriminalizing unauthorized border crossings and funding gender transition surgeries for federal prisoners, including undocumented immigrants. 

There is no real evidence that an even more progressive Democrat would do better. Sanders’s 2020 primary campaign was a disappointment, indicating that many Democrats are still uneasy with a more left-wing party. Progressives also lack a good example of their governance. Mayor Brandon Johnson of Chicago, whose victory was hailed by progressive groups, has, according to a poll from February, an approval rating of 26 percent.

Democrats must face the reality that they are out of step with the rest of the country. The public wants tougher immigration laws (but also wants a pathway to citizenship for people brought here illegally as children) and, at least before Mr. Trump returned to power, favored less immigration overall. Voters also favor more spending on the police and limitations on transgender treatments, the latter stance supported by a major study commissioned by the British government that is critical of giving puberty blockers and “gender identity” treatments to minors. Changing on this issue will not be easy given the party’s left-wing faction. For example, when Seth Moulton, a Democratic congressman from Massachusetts, voiced objections to transgender women playing in women’s sports he faced an outcry and a primary challenge. 

Even on abortion, where Democrats feel they have an advantage, there are limits to their appeal. A Knights of Columbus/Marist poll in 2021 showed that a majority of Americans opposed federal funding for abortion both within and outside the country. Sandra Juaregui, the Democratic majority leader in the Nevada Assembly, told The New York Times this summer that her party’s emphasis on abortion “did not resonate with many of the Hispanic and Asian American households in her district.” 

But even Ms. Jauregui still highlights endorsements from Planned Parenthood, Emily’s List and Reproductive Freedom for All on her campaign website, suggesting that she is advocating a change in style rather than substance. And while Representative Khanna recently appeared to express regret over his help in ousting Dan Lipinski, one of the last pro-life Democrats in office, the party as a whole has done virtually nothing to appeal to pro-lifers, despite the acknowledgment by many leaders that their party needs to broaden its appeal on cultural issues. 

In the last few years, some Republicans have shown a willingness to break with party orthodoxy; the Democrats might benefit if more of its candidates did the same. Representative Khanna has expressed admiration for some of JD Vance’s insights; he knows the vice president is not to be underestimated and will be a formidable opponent if he is the Republican presidential nominee in 2028. If the Democratic Party wishes to win that year, it needs to engage in some soul-searching. A further drift to the left is unlikely to be the answer to its problems.

Paul James Macrae is a recent graduate of The Catholic University of America. He has also written for the periodicals Front Porch Republic and Providence.