Opposing Trump Isn’t Enough, Democrats Need to Appeal to a Wider Audience
Minneapolis Can Feel Like an Island, but It Isn’t
When we read stories in the national press, we often ask ourselves: how does this apply to Minneapolis? The answer isn’t always obvious. Our city can feel like an island unto itself — with debates and proposals that would gain little traction anywhere outside the most liberal enclaves in America.
Take Ward 2 Council Member Robin Wonsley’s campaign for re-election, which elevates the idea of a municipal grocery store. It’s a proposal that might raise eyebrows in most U.S. cities, but here, it’s part of a serious civic conversation about equity, access, and public control.
That sense of exceptionalism runs deeper than policy. For most cities, having police officers in a police station is an unremarkable fact of life. In Minneapolis, residents of the 3rd Precinct watched their station burn to the ground on May 28, 2020, just three days after George Floyd’s murder. More than five years later, the precinct still operates from a temporary site. At the same time, the planned South Minneapolis Community Safety Center — a facility meant to include both a police station and “other community resources” — remains months, if not years, from opening.
A small but vocal group of residents objected to calling the new facility a police station — and so it became a community safety center. This kind of semantic reframing may seem harmless, but to many voters it represents the sort of symbolic politics that’s driving people away from the DFL.
Nationally, Republicans are gaining ground in voter registration. According to NBC News, “Republicans have slashed a long-standing Democratic registration edge by more than 1 million just since last year’s election. This is a far cry from Trump’s first term, when the net shift to the GOP between the 2016 and 2018 elections was barely 100,000.”
Even as Donald Trump remains deeply polarizing, Democrats face their own popularity crisis. The No Kings rally was inspiring, but it must yield tangible results — like new voter registrations — if it’s going to help the party win back the White House. Without a course correction, Republicans could establish a long-lasting electoral advantage. That would be tragic, because their policies often harm the very communities Democrats claim to champion: those most in need of opportunity and stability.
The larger point is that Minneapolis continues to drift, moving from one well-intentioned initiative to the next without a clear plan or shared vision. The city — and by extension, the DFL — struggles to articulate goals and build consensus around them. Much of what emerges from the council reflects an ideology that seems to overlook a basic civic truth: residents want to feel safe, raise families, prosper economically, and find a community that reflects their values.
When politicians invoke “Minnesota values” or “Minneapolis values,” it’s often unclear what those values actually mean in practice. The DFL seems more focused on tearing itself apart than on crafting a moderate, unifying platform that could expand its base and preserve control of the governor’s office.
Look at the Entire Map
Keeping Minnesota in the blue column will require Minneapolis voters to recognize that electing candidates with the most uncompromising agendas risks alienating the independent and socially moderate residents whose votes are essential to prevent the state from turning red beyond a few bright-blue city dots.
One example came from The Opinions, a New York Times podcast that recently interviewed Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona — who won even as his state voted for Trump. He did so by emphasizing prosperity over the more abstract language of equity — a term that often resonates less with voters outside academic or activist circles. Gallego’s victory offers a lesson in what it takes to win elections: clear goals, disciplined messaging, and a genuine understanding of the people you aim to represent.
Gallego earned attention for banning the term “Latinx” from his campaign, advocating stronger border enforcement, and rejecting guidance from nonprofit think tanks that presumed to know what Hispanic men wanted. He understood that many voters value economic opportunity — and yes, the pride of having a “giant truck” in the driveway, which to them, symbolized success. He didn’t try to convince them that their understanding of the American Dream was wrong; he spoke to it directly.
At its best, this is what effective representation looks like: affirming that prosperity, built through hard work and determination, remains a shared ideal. People crave the dignity that comes from knowing what they have, they’ve earned. Government’s role is to build the scaffolding that helps them climb toward those dreams.
Another item worth noting was a recent New York Times editorial titled, “The Partisans Are Wrong: Moving to the Center Is the Way to Win.”
The board’s analysis shows that in today’s political climate, moderate candidates fare better than those on the extremes — particularly in the swing states that determine national outcomes.
It’s worth pausing to clarify what “moderate” actually means, because it doesn’t mean standing still or waiting for Trump to fade from the scene. Here’s how the editorial board summarized the centrist consensus, based on recent polling:
- Most voters prefer capitalism to socialism, worry that government is too big — and also believe that corporations and the wealthy hold too much power.
- Most oppose both the harsh immigration enforcement of the Trump years and the lax Biden policies that led to record border crossings.
- Most favor robust policing to combat crime and simultaneously reject police brutality.
- Most support broad abortion access, with some restrictions later in pregnancy.
- Most oppose race-based affirmative action but support class-based approaches.
- Most favor job protections for transgender people and believe trans girls should not compete in girls’ sports.
- Most want strong public schools and the flexibility to choose where their children attend.
These findings reflect a country that is neither left nor right in absolute terms — but pragmatic, conflicted, and yearning for balance.
The Moderate Minneapolis Agenda
It’s worth debating what a truly moderate agenda for the city should look like — but what’s clear is that one is needed. Promoting candidates who oppose progress at George Floyd Square or delay rebuilding the Southside Community Safety Center isn’t going to get us there.
Yes, we want accountable police — but we also need more of them. And we must recognize that law enforcement is only one side of the equation. There are also the individuals breaking into homes, smashing windows, selling drugs, and carrying weapons. These are people who have decided that the risks of crime are acceptable — often because other paths to prosperity or belonging feel closed to them.
Minneapolis needs candidates willing to speak to both sides of that equation. Yes, discuss diverting appropriate 911 calls away from MPD, but also talk frankly about the responsibility the community has in keeping children out of gangs and off the streets. Relying on the city or county to act as guardians is a losing strategy — one that leaves families, children, and neighborhoods to bear the cost.
When it comes to workers, let’s remember that fewer than 15% of residents belong to unions. While collective bargaining and fair wages are essential, much of the conversation about workers overlooks the 85% who depend on private employers and investment to support their families. Minneapolis must welcome businesses of all sizes so that there are economic opportunities for both new arrivals and lifelong residents.
The constant vilifying of businesses, builders, and investors may win applause in a city election, but it undermines the city’s long-term health. Attracting business investment is essential to creating high-wage jobs, expanding opportunity, and restoring a sense of security in Minneapolis. Programs like the oft-cited Vibrant Storefronts initiative are a temporary fix for much deeper structural wounds. Relying on government programs alone to rebuild this city — and make it a true center of energy, jobs, and innovation a decade from now — is unrealistic at best and damaging at worst.
Conclusion
The moderate mindset described by the New York Times editorial board reflects the values of many in this city. The Minneapolis DFL — weakened and directionless after its recent rebuke from the state party — may ultimately need to give way to something new. An independent movement focused on efficient governance, accountability, public safety, and economic opportunity could find real traction here.
What happens in Minneapolis reverberates far beyond our own neighborhoods. As we head into this election, we should ask which candidates will move the city toward sensible, unifying policies that can broaden the appeal of the DFL brand across Minnesota.
The best way to counter Republican momentum is to show that Democrats can govern Minneapolis with unity, efficiency, and a seriousness worthy of the city’s promise. In short, we need to get the basics right and deliver real improvements in residents’ quality of life.
This article originally appeared in Better Minneapolis
Here and there, I agree with some statements made here: For example it is unrealistic and unpopular to try to totally defund the police. But the intent of the statement about “the other side of the equation” is very unclear. Does it mean that we should recognise that criminal acts continue? If so, it’s trivial and is not leading to constructive policy solutions. In my opinion the problem with the police has been both brutality and incompetence. The need to address incompetence is not much addressed: It has been difficult to even get an inspector assigned when there is abundant evidence of crime and it is only very rarely that a really good inspector does the job and gets convictions. (Sometimes it happens.)
The whole piece seems to be vaguely suggesting some kind of new political formation with a probusiness, “moderate’ slant. I don’t perceive any leadership around that could make that happen, and in my opinion, it would be a political disaster. Nationwide, we are facing a fast moving attempt to transform the US into a dictatorship very similar to, and in fact inspired by, the fascist movements of the 1930’s. Many so-called ‘business leaders’ have enthusiastically signed on to that program, as evidenced, if it is not obvious, by a recent white house meeting including CEO’s of Amazon, Google and Microsoft where Trump bragged about tearing down part of the White House. That was, again if it’s needed, a dramatic symbol of what’s happening on a massive scale.
A major part of the larger problem is the abandonment by much of the business community of any recognition of responsibility for the general public welfare. I think that the reason that many in the public express a weak preference for capitalism is that they have never known anything else, have little knowledge of alternatives, and have been subjected to relentless propaganda vilifying all forms of socialism for generations. But because the descent of much of the ‘business class’ into outright support of dictatorship has become so obvious, many, including in Minneapolis, have turned to some form of democratic socialism as a possible better direction. Exactly how that will work out in practise over time is unclear and some stumbles are to be expected at first. But, in my opinion, it is a very bad idea to try to kill the baby just as it starts to toddle. Almost the only really vibrant political leaders that are not supporting fascism are moving in that direction.