Democrats Have An Empathy Problem of Their Own

It's time for Dems to do the hard work of actually listening to Trump voters.

Note: a version of this post was also graciously published in Persuasion.

***

My sister ran for State Representative in New Hampshire and, like many Democrats all over the country, she came up short last Tuesday. It was a devastating loss. She poured her heart into the campaign as a first-time candidate and did a tremendous job. She outraised her opponent nearly 7 to 1, she knocked on over 1500 doors, and she shifted her messaging to the center, positioning herself as a “commonsense community-builder.” On top of that, she proved herself to be a natural candidate. She is energetic, optimistic, self-confident, doesn’t take herself too seriously, and can talk to absolutely anyone.

By contrast, the state Republican Party sent ads in support of my sister’s opponent that were so offensive and ridiculous, it’s hard to take them seriously. One of them showed three shirtless hispanic men covered in tattoos with the title: “MEET YOUR NEW NEIGHBORS: Democrats’ open borders are letting illegal immigrants, drugs, and crime flow into New Hampshire.” 

Yet my sister lost.

Many Democrats will, understandably, respond with some mix of surprise, disgust, and confusion over how voters could make such a choice at either the local or national level. They will wonder: Has race-baiting hostility truly won out over kindness and reasonability? 

Unfortunately, this is the wrong question, and one reflects a growing disconnect between Democrats and the broader electorate, especially non-college educated voters. In fact, it is Democrats that have shown a lack of empathy towards their own constituents. They have consistently failed to listen to average voters while simultaneously judging them. It is a toxic combination that has so undermined the Democratic brand that it led to a resounding victory for Donald Trump and down-ballot Republicans across the country. Democrats must reckon with the painful truth that they have lost the trust of those they claim to represent. Only once they do that can they get back to winning elections.

“How Can They be So Stupid?”

On election day, I stood outside a voting station in Newport, NH, an economically depressed town that has flipped decisively red over the past few presidential election cycles. I was holding Democratic signs for my sister’s campaign alongside Larry, a retired local physician who seemed to know half the people in Newport. Larry—like my sister—represents the best of the Democrats. Every few minutes one of the voters would step out of line and come give their former physician a huge hug and express how much they missed seeing him. Larry would console them on the recent loss of a loved one or ask about their children. He turned to me and said, “they’re great people—even if they don’t share my political views.”

We both knew that the strong turnout in Newport was a bad sign for my sister and Democrats more broadly because, embarrassingly, Democrats have lost the working class. When all the votes were tallied, turnout in Newport was even higher than in 2020—and nearly every additional vote went for Mr. Trump. 

After returning from Newport, but before I knew the results, I ran into a well-dressed woman in the wealthier neighboring town. She saw me wearing my sister’s campaign sweatshirt and came up to express her support. I thanked her but mentioned I was nervous about the outcome because of what I saw in Newport. When I mentioned Democrats struggling with the working classes, she cut in: “I know, I’m originally from New York City. You just have to ask yourself, ‘How stupid can they be?’” 

That kind of comment represents the worst of Democrats. I had intended my insight as self-criticism of the party, but she took it as license to emphasize her perceived superiority and offhandedly demean those who were not as well off. Sadly, this was not an isolated incident. Almost without fail, whenever I tell people that Trump has done a good job speaking to working-class voters, they interrupt to say “but they are voting against their own interests!” or “but he’ll just give tax cuts to billionaires!” They seem completely confident in the stupidity of half the country and show little curiosity in learning more about the motivations of those voters. Another friend said to me simply, “they are not kind and decent.”

“Democrats Have Lost the Will of the People”

Accusing Democrats of a lack of curiosity and empathy may feel like a bridge too far when Donald Trump, a narcissistic bully, sits atop the Republican Party. But it is not. These are not conditional values, and the longer Democrats take to realize it, the longer they will remain confused and ineffectual as an electoral force. Instead of dismissing Trump voters as stupid, racist, or voting against their interests, Democrats must open themselves to the possibility that many voters made a legitimate, informed choice to elect Trump in spite of his faults.

My friend Henry is a perfect example. Henry is a veteran with a high school education. I hired him to join my automotive start-up at an early stage. He took significant career risk in doing so and proved himself to be one of the kindest and hardest-working individuals I have ever met. He would work late into the night, train new employees graciously, and do whatever it took to make the team successful. He was universally beloved by our diverse mix of employees.

Up until 2016 Henry was a Democrat, but now he votes for Trump. 

In a recent conversation with him, he laid out his motivations as well as his dissatisfaction with Democrats. He emphasized that he had nothing against Harris, but he was underwhelmed by her. He did not feel that her time as vice president was particularly successful. Mostly, he just felt like “she was going to carry on the same stuff,” and that was unacceptable. “We need a big overhaul,” Henry said. 

He described his family’s challenges and how they were “treading water” financially. His wife, a stay-at-home mom, had taken a job at Walmart, where they also shopped. In looking at their monthly expenditures they were dismayed by major price increases for routine purchases. Their family also moved back to Ohio recently to better support Henry’s aging parents. In doing so, they sold their home in New England and purchased a cheaper home in Ohio, while also putting 20% down. Yet their monthly payment was nearly identical. 

In Henry’s estimation, Democrats have mismanaged the economy, and the country needed a president with a CEO mindset to get things back on track. “Look, as a human being, I don’t like the guy,” Henry said. “He is a bully, but I think we need someone with a business managerial perspective. If he would just shut his mouth, he would be great, but he’s got to keep saying all this dumb stuff.” 

In addition to the economy, he appreciated that Mr Trump had appointed RFK Jr to take on the systemic health issues in the country. “Weight-issues and diabetes run in our family. America’s food supply is terrible. In other countries, a lot of this stuff would be banned. We are filling ourselves with chemicals. And I don’t think we should try to fix the problem with pharmaceuticals. But of course big government and big corporations aren’t going to fix the underlying food supply problem, because there is no profit in it.”

He did not feel like this was a priority for Democrats. In fact, he did not think that Democrats were prioritizing the stuff that really mattered to normal folks, in general. “They have lost the will of the people. They have lost their way. They need to get out there and mix it up. They aren’t responding to us and what we care about.”

He had no shortage of examples. On Covid: “I think America’s response will go down as a historical mistake. Look, I don’t think Covid was a scam. I think it was real; I got a couple of shots at the beginning, but the response was so heavy handed.… Forcing shutdowns which caused supply chain problems and then so many government handouts, and then the inflation. And it's the middle class that is still paying for it. It’s very frustrating.”

On immigration: “I love legal immigration. C’mon over. It’s what we are all about.” But when it comes to illegal immigration, “I’m not a fan. We are giving people money who came here illegally.” He noted that he did not want “to see Mexico become the whipping boy. The Spanish community should be accepted. They are an integral part of the US. But we need order at the border.”

On identity politics: “I was around in the 90s, the first time political correctness was a thing. I’m not a fan. I think we should have common sense and a moral compass. …  We need more humanity. More debate. People just want to be included, but it feels like you could lose your job if you say the wrong thing. It’s scary.”

Losing their way, frustrating, scary. These are the words that a kind and thoughtful working-class person like Henry uses to describe the Democrats’ approach.

The Root of Democratic Blindspots

Donald Trump has a laundry list of loathsome personal traits and dubious policy ideas. Yet he made millions of voters like Henry feel more heard than Democrats did. That is a damning indictment, and one that should trigger serious reevaluation of Democrats’ default instincts. 

The critical flaw that perpetuates nearly all of the Democrats’ misjudgments is their tendency to use an overly narrow moral framework that prevents them from seeing the world as average voters see it. Before my sister’s election, the local Democratic organization sent out an email that framed the election as a choice between “two very different futures: one that embraces justice, diversity, equity and inclusion vs one that stands for fear, discrimination, othering, and law driven by extremist right-wing ideology.” 

I screenshot the email and texted my sister, “This kind of framing and language is why Dems lose.”

This framing—one that sees the major issues as fundamentally about equity vs hate—is common among Democratic activists, but it is not how voters like Henry frame their choices. They are simply factoring in different and additional moral frameworks into their decision making. While a wealthy, well-educated suburban voter may prefer equity and inclusivity as their primary moral framework, a working-class voter in a struggling industry may prioritize economic empowerment and personal dignity as theirs.¹

Democrats need to learn to keep listening to voters even when those voters say something or support a candidate that violates what they would consider an equity-oriented moral framing. This change is critically important if Democrats are to start rebuilding their relationship with voters. 

Be Curious

All is not lost. Donald Trump is still a narcissistic bully who has little regard for liberal democracy. He will inevitably suffer self-inflicted wounds that will create a political opening for Democrats. The question is whether they can build a more compelling vision from the bottom up by listening to voters with an open mind. 

In the hit TV series, Ted Lasso, Ted doles out an applicable life lesson: “be curious.” In a touching scene in which he bests the arrogant Rupert Mannion in a game of darts, he explains that he has been constantly underestimated and belittled in his life, but he finally realized it was not really about him. Those judging him were simply not curious. They saw him as a dumb hillbilly and never bothered to ask deeper questions about who he was and, in doing so, failed to take him seriously. 

Democrats now need to heed this advice. They must take the party in a pragmatic direction that strips away the condescension and self-righteousness while staying true to their values. They can prove to voters that strength is not bullying; that pride in America can expand who we are, rather than shrink it; and that American greatness is not a slogan, but an unyielding commitment to empowering average folks to achieve their American Dream. 

This work is achievable. But it must begin by listening.

1. Research by Jonathan Haidt in his book “A Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion” supports this insight. He lays out six moral frameworks and shows that liberals tend to prioritize two of them, care and fairness, above all others. In contrast, conservatives tend to weigh all the moral frameworks more equally: care, fairness, loyalty, sanctity, authority, and liberty.