Disarray at the Top: The Democratic Messaging Gap
Two years out from a momentous general election, Democrats find themselves at a crossroads—an inflection point complicated not just by an opponent as relentlessly polarizing as Donald Trump, but by their own internal divisions. The latest, most stinging criticism comes not from a Republican rival or cable news adversary, but from Ashley Etienne, a seasoned Democratic strategist, former top aide to Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, and communications director to Vice President Kamala Harris. In a searing podcast interview, Etienne warned the current House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries is ‘squandering’ a once-in-a-lifetime chance to rally Americans against Trump’s agenda, describing the party’s messaging operation as “the dumbest s–t ever.”
That’s not typical hyperbole. Etienne’s frustration echoes a quietly growing chorus of liberal strategists and activists. According to her, Democrats are not leveraging the overwhelming “red meat” handed to them by Trump’s controversies, court battles, and retrogressive policy stances. “There’s a sense,” she explained, “that with Trump in the spotlight, the work of making him the villain is already done. But politics doesn’t work that way.”
What makes Etienne’s critique so potent isn’t just her résumé—it’s the factual grounding. Democrats, she argues, have failed to coordinate with outside organizations, grassroots activists, and moderate officials nationwide, wasting resources and muddying their own anti-Trump narrative. We’re not talking about nitpicking here: The contrast between Pelosi’s war-room style and Jeffries’ more diffused, hesitant approach is stark. As Harvard political scientist Theda Skocpol notes, “Pelosi centralized both strategy and discipline.” Today, Democrats risk appearing adrift, lacking even a basic post-election ‘autopsy’ of what’s working and what’s not.
The Pelosi Factor: A Legacy Ignored at Democrats’ Peril
Beyond the immediate critique, Etienne spotlights something more—an almost deliberate turn away from the tested playbook of Pelosi’s speakership, known for both strategic coherence and relentless coalition-building. She revealed that Jeffries and his team have consciously sidelined Pelosi’s advice and that of her confidantes, which she calls “the dumbest s–t ever.” We don’t need to look far for proof that experience matters: Under Pelosi, House Democrats secured policy victories from health care to COVID relief, often in the face of brutal opposition.
The decision to spurn Pelosi’s network may seem like an attempt at generational change. But the strategy risks amputating the very muscle memory that helped Democrats weather the Trump years without losing their message or their majority. “Why would you turn away from the only team that’s shown it can beat Trump at his own chaotic game?” Etienne asked. The answer is as much about political hubris as ambition—a quest to chart a new course without the balancing force of historical knowledge.
“It’s a failure to see that navigating a Trump election isn’t about new faces or slogans—it’s about harnessing every piece of the Democratic infrastructure, from Pelosi’s playbook to grassroots organizers. If Jeffries can’t recognize that, we all pay the price.” — Ashley Etienne
It’s no accident that Jeffries’ spokesperson immediately pushed back, citing weekly calls with grassroots allies and regular talks with Pelosi herself. Still, progressive groups like the Progressive Change Campaign Committee report feeling shut out. The sentiment: It’s hard to run a national campaign if your own house is divided and your leaders are talking past one another.
A closer look reveals these criticisms aren’t mere inside baseball. The decision to ignore ‘autopsies’—deep, candid assessments of what went wrong—is reminiscent of pre-2016 Democratic hubris, a time when warning signs about Trump’s resonance with working-class voters went unheeded. As American political history shows, adaptation and humility are crucial to survival. Will this lesson sink in before 2026?
Missed Opportunities—and a Roadmap Forward?
Is it possible for Democrats to get their act together before Trump’s populist juggernaut fully remobilizes? In the wake of Etienne’s critique, some in the party are taking note and action. Senator Elissa Slotkin, a rising centrist voice and former CIA officer, is calling for a “military-style operational plan” to counter Trump’s comeback. Her proposal is audacious: a shadow Cabinet ready to challenge every Trump initiative, and a nationally contested 2028 Democratic primary to showcase aspiring leaders instead of relying exclusively on institutional wisdom. As Slotkin told NPR, “You’ve got to show voters not just that you disagree with Trump, but that you’re actually ready to govern on Day One.”
Other prominent progressives urge the party not to abandon the energy of grassroots advocacy. Tamika Mallory, leader of the Women’s March, argues, “We need more unity—and more willingness to listen, not less. This can’t be a top-down exercise.” Traditionalist or insurgent, the message is clarion: bold, unified Democratic messaging is needed—one that not only opposes Trump but galvanizes Americans behind a positive vision of democracy, economic fairness, and dignity for all.
Failing to seize this chance could spell disaster for the Democratic Party and imperil the causes of equity and progressivism they claim to champion. Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016 already demonstrated what happens when warning signs go unheeded and complacency sets in. John Dean, former Nixon counsel and Watergate whistleblower, underlines this danger, noting, “Democrats have an obligation: not just to beat Trump, but to show the country what they’re for.”
What’s the real cost of missed opportunities? For starters, millions of working-class and moderate voters left unpersuaded, a progressive base demoralized by infighting, and Republican policy free to set the terms of debate. This moment demands steel, spine, and most importantly, humility to draw on every available resource within the party—no matter the egos bruised on the way. As the next election cycle looms, that lesson could prove decisive for anyone hoping to defend the future of American democracy.
