The Democratic Party and its journey through the desert

By: Ricardo Israel - 29/06/2025

The origin is biblical, depicting a journey that became a test, purification, and learning experience. Google says that “The desert crossing refers to a difficult and challenging period, often of solitude and reflection, that a person or group must go through before achieving a goal or a new beginning.”

This is exactly what is happening today to the Democratic Party in the United States, a problem that has been a mixture of maturation and slow-burning for years, but which must be resolved quickly if it does not want to lose prominence and relevance, as demonstrated by the very important primary held in New York City, one of the crown jewels for any Democratic politician. Today, beyond retaining the mayoralty, what has happened nationally seems to be playing in favor of Trump and his "common sense" rhetoric.

The seriousness isn't so much about who won, since Zohran Mamdani triumphed well and legitimately. The problem isn't that, but rather that in the US, the Democrats don't seem to be fulfilling their role as opposition. This is, in my opinion, the most serious issue, since every democratic system requires alternation in power, and today they are not doing so. This is accompanied by the additional problem of the loss of credibility of the media outlets close to the party, which is objectively measured by low readership, audience ratings, and audience share, since they simply didn't tell the truth by remaining silent and denying the physical and mental deterioration of former President Biden.

The problem remains the same: limiting oneself to simply rejecting everything Trump says or thinks, everything he does or doesn't do, but the serious thing is that it doesn't address what the Democrats would do if they returned to power. It's all emotion, nothing more; only opposition, but without alternative proposals. In truth, only Trump appears, whose life is made more difficult by some minority Republican representatives in Congress than by the Democrats' rejections.

Its origins lie in the Democratic-Republican Party of two founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. After a crisis in that party, which had governed uninterruptedly since 1801, followers of Andrew Jackson founded it, making it the oldest active political party in the world—older than the English—and fifteen members have served as president of the nation.

In the years I taught American politics, the materials said that in 1834 the name Democratic Party was definitively established, although it would not be until 1844 that it was formally made official.

In the beginning, conservatism was the predominant philosophy, but thereafter, there were shifts every 25 or 30 years, with a significant one at the end of the 19th century, when populism became the main characteristic in the rural areas of the South. In the 1930s, under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, conservative factions lost all relevance, with the so-called New Deal Coalition, which incorporated social democratic positions that attracted both working-class Catholic voters and a strong Jewish representation, as expressed in the election of Kennedy in 1960. Although Southern racism was still present within the party, so much so that the press reported that Ku Klan leaders, some of them mayors and representatives, perhaps senators, were active there.

It may seem surprising to some readers, but it's historically true, and it shouldn't be so surprising that political parties change every two or three decades, as is happening today. In fact, in the 1960s, the party began to be the face of racial equality, preferentially representing African American voters. Support for this began to crumble only in the last presidential election, when Donald Trump received votes from African American and Latino voters, still a minority, but something that hadn't happened before.

Since the death of John Kennedy, the party became a force, a mixture of social democrat and liberal, the latter movement, which had already begun to stand out within it, with the election of Woodrow Wilson, between 1913 and 1921. The Democrats have been characterized by renewal with the different waves of immigration and with the incorporation of sectors to their left, who decide to do politics within it, feeling comfortable in a structure that resembles more a movement or current than the vertical discipline of other traditional parties. As an example, two should be mentioned, those Vietnam War activists, who mobilized in street protests, but who joined activism in the 60s and 70s, as well as what happened with Senator Sanders, who, without being a formal activist, does politics through the Democrats, and leads a sector that defines itself as socialist and that had a prominent participation, both against Hillary Clinton in 2016 and against Joe Biden in 2020. His supporters, who came mostly from young sectors, joined massively on both occasions, transforming his proposal of Marxism in a progressive key into a relevant sector of the current organization.

Like the Republicans, the Democratic Party, rather than a unitary party, is a movement in which rival factions converge. They have often been compared to the Peronists in this regard, but with one major difference: Democrats do not discipline themselves in the same way as Argentines after an election, whether they win or lose.

The defeats to Donald Trump have led the party to its current turmoil; today, deeply divided, both at the local level and within the National Committee, with no proposals or names emerging that can rally the party, a cause, and at the same time, a consequence of the lack of leadership, both new and old, that seems acceptable to the majority.

This is what has erupted in the New York primary, something much deeper than a generational renewal, from the moment that a sector that has been in constant growth appears with greater future possibilities, which began modestly as the "squad" (or team), a group that increased from 4 original members in the House to 20, with characteristics very different from the usual centrism, expressing itself in a strong radicalization, and that sets a trend when Sanders, with a good massive turnout, is touring the country proclaiming Alexandria Ocasio-Cortés as the future leader of the party, a group that Mamdani is further radicalizing in his proposals, seeming to bet on double or nothing, and following a constant in other countries, since in conditions of polarization, it is the most extreme sector that is most empowered after a defeat.

In the rise of a virtual unknown, it was not so striking that he defeated Andrew Cuomo, the former governor, son of another man, who was forced to resign a couple of years ago following accusations of sexual harassment. The winner emerged without that heavy burden, and was elected on the basis of his proposals, which, if ratified in November, would make him the most radical elected official in the country's history.

Indeed, Zohran Mamdami, 33, an assembly member, was born in Uganda, a supporter of political Islam, to well-to-do immigrant and intellectual parents, and a US citizen for only seven years. What was surprising were the proposals that allowed him to win cleanly and by a wide margin over Cuomo and the other candidates. The proposals include free public transportation, free childcare for all mothers who need it for their children, a freeze on all rents, the immediate construction of 200,000 new subsidized housing units, a reduction in the police budget, and replacing police officers with social workers as the first responders to reports of violence or crime. Also proposed is the creation of a network of municipally owned businesses and supermarkets to supply the population with all essentials, as well as raising the minimum wage to US$30 an hour, at all levels, from large to small businesses. By the way, many of these measures don't depend on a mayor; they require the executive and legislative branches, as well as the proposal to finance them with a significant tax increase.

These proposals are no small feat, given that Democrats typically win in New York City, so much so that in the last century few have been elected without being Democrats, and in each case, it is the result of a deteriorating situation like those that led to the victories of Rudy Giuliani (1994-2001) and Fiorelo La Guardia (1934-45), so the real definition is made in the primaries.

Aside from the proposals, the second striking aspect of Mamdani's victory was knowing who had voted for him. They did, primarily young, well-off white voters, losing significantly in minority, African-American, and Latino districts.

Of course, a curious electoral system, typical of New York, had an influence, where those who go to vote do so for up to five people, according to the level of preference assigned to them in decreasing order, but above all, it is an expression of deeper changes in electoral behavior as well as what I have called the Latin Americanization of American politics, that is, strong polarization, cultural division of the country with opposing visions of the past and the future, impossibility of reaching agreements and consensus, predominance of narratives over facts, and strong radicalization in both parties, where much changed the US because of Trump, but perhaps even more so fighting him, with minority anti-democratic sectors on both sides.

A good example of the current quality of politics in the US today is that the primaries were won by proposals that have not only failed everywhere in the world where they have been tried, but, as part of this Latin Americanization, are reminiscent of both Chavismo and the Kirchners. In addition, the winner's positions and opinions have spread much fear among the Iranian exile community, who feel threatened by his radicalism as well as by the disparagement of Israel within the Jewish community, given that New York is the second metropolitan area with the largest Jewish population in the world.

In any case, the majority that preferred Mamdani confirms the Democrats' shift, as they have ceased to be the traditional party of workers and first-generation immigrants, instead expressing a social and demographic base from large cities and college-educated voters. In this sense, the Republicans under Trump have also undergone a notable social shift, but in the opposite direction, with the turnout of white men declining and the turnout of Indian-Hindu, African-American, and Latino minorities increasing, as well as women and workers, moving closer today to the US than a decade ago.

Mamdani's case also confirms that the Democrats' internal process seems to be pointing more to an internal competition for who is farthest to the left than to the center, as this victory leaves Sanders and the squad behind. Perhaps what we are experiencing today reflects a repeat of Richard Nixon's victory in 1968, which increased the very public presence of ultra-liberals, sometimes bordering on socialism, making them sure candidates for defeat in the United States at that time, and which was reflected in the crushing defeat they suffered against George McGovern in 1972.

The party leadership's response was to conclude that such candidates made it impossible for the party to move to the center and win, so it adopted an undemocratic system for the party conventions that named the candidate. This system included a number of people who were not elected but rather appointed based on their past performances, and who, in numbers exceeding one thousand, could decide the winner. They were called "superdelegates."

And some of that has been present in the inelegant manner in which Sanders was dismissed when he threatened to be a potential rival against Hillary Clinton and Biden, something Sanders understood as his chances dwindled the financial support of the so-called billionaire caucus that holds so much influence in both parties. Perhaps that's why there wasn't a mini-primary after Biden was dismissed in 2024, and he still resents it to this day, and Kamala Harris's name was imposed, for the same reason, with diminished legitimacy.

Today, perhaps what happened in NY is an indication of what is happening, where Mamdani should not be underestimated, who has overcome obstacles and perhaps has not reached his limit, especially if his rivals are the current mayor Eric Adams, with accusations that make him a minor candidate, and perhaps if Cuomo decides to also run as an independent, he would be violating the commitment made in the primary where he was defeated, in addition to giving the idea that elections are only respected if I win.

The truth is that this process of leftward shift did not begin now, but was present with Obama and Biden, and that the big Democratic money, which has since surpassed that of the Republicans, comes mainly from large technology companies, along with contributions from that historic donor who was George Soros and his Open Society Foundation, and that has ended up stimulating the three antis: anti-capitalism, anti-America (for the US), and anti-Semitic, which is also unraveling the historic Democratic coalition, the so-called rainbow coalition, due to its diversity, and which allowed it to win elections, until it became a kind of "natural" governing party.

Given the aforementioned changes, I wasn't surprised by the winner of the New York primary, and I count myself among those who anticipated his victory. Within this Latin Americanization of American politics, his rise resonated very well with young voters, tired of being unable to pay their rent, just as Trump had predicted with inflation. In New York, the Democrats today appear to be tuning in to young, white, and eccentric voters who are unaware of what happened to free education policies, not only in Venezuela but also in East Germany. They were enthusiastic about someone who claims he's going to give away everything for free—whether he can or not—and who also doesn't face the corruption accusations of his rivals, a candidate who divides the world into good and bad.

I'm not surprised by what's happening with the Democrats, and I've already recounted what happened to me six years ago when I settled in the US, where I wanted to get involved, but quickly distanced myself when I realized that the mixed social democratic and liberal party no longer existed and had given way to progressive wokeism, with a big additional surprise: an unexpected component of anti-Semitism.

Will there be a reaction from within? I would like, based on what I indicated at the beginning, the importance of alternation for a healthy democracy. I would like it, but I have my doubts. To begin with, there is a fundamental problem, since in Congress, a quick review shows me that no more than 5% of the seats are ever up for grabs, and the rest only occasionally, since in practice the frequent district arrangements, on both sides, have produced too many uncompetitive elections outside the presidential election, quasi-single-party systems, which is bad everywhere, be it autocracy or democracy, but especially in the latter, since just as Carlos Sánchez Berzain says about so-called electoral dictatorships, where the effect is that people vote but don't elect, the same thing happens in democracies when there are situations with little alternation in power, as the states of New York and California are examples for the Democrats, or Montana or Utah for the Republicans, so that rather than serving as a day for general suffrage, the real election has taken place in the primaries.

I can't help but remember the time I traveled many years ago to Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico, and I was very surprised, in my adolescent ignorance, to find that there was a city paralyzed by a strike, because they didn't want the PRI to nominate a certain person as a candidate during the era of the "perfect dictatorship." I couldn't understand how right they were, since, in the absence of a competitive election, the result was already known.

The US is not Mexico, but will the Democratic Party react? I have my doubts, given what has happened with the Jewish community, since their vote for the Democrats has continued despite the emergence of a previously nonexistent anti-Israeli movement within the party. In this situation, I didn't see a reaction at the level of the problem, not even from the many Jewish members of Congress within the party. And if there was one, it was individual rather than collective, since they never truly confronted that group of women who, within the squad, displayed their anti-Semitism. Neither did the Jewish community or its leaders, at least publicly, nor was it reflected in their financial contributions.

The consequences have been seen: the tumor has grown and is now metastasizing in New York. It reminds me a bit of what I saw in Chile among community leaders, which ended with a proven antisemite like Boric in La Moneda.

Given what has been demonstrated in the face of the wave of Judeophobia in universities, where they could have done more than they did, if the Jewish community in New York doesn't react, then where?

Meanwhile, to gain the possibility of being an alternative, Democrats must overcome the kind of Trump syndrome they've fallen into and work on proposals that don't exist today. What happened in New York, even if Mamdani wins, will work against them.

@israelzipper

Master's and PhD in Political Science (Essex University), Bachelor of Law (University of Barcelona), Lawyer (University of Chile), former presidential candidate (Chile, 2013)

«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».