The Democrats are impotent and frustrated, but don't mistake them for dead or dying.

In 1997, E.J. Dionne published a book called “They Only Look Dead.” “They” referred to “progressives.” And in 1997, they did look kind of dead.

Yes, a Democrat was president, but he had “triangulated” himself away from progressivism, and Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress. In the Senate they controlled more seats than at any time since 1920. And in the three presidential elections before Clinton’s victory, Republicans had won two genuine landslides (Reagan) and a victory considerably more decisive than either of Donald Trump’s (Bush 41).

But the progressives weren’t dead. Dionne was wrong to say in the book’s subtitle that they would “dominate the next political era,” but they came to dominate the Democratic party and have controlled the White House for half of the 21st Century.

Today, some think the Democrats look dead. The party’s approval rate is below 30. The party seems badly divided between far leftists and more traditional liberals. Its congressional delegates made fools out of themselves during Donald Trump’s address to Congress.

But the Democrats don’t look dead to me. The first of the above symptoms — low approval — is explained in some small part by the second — serious divisions. Enough Democrats disapprove of their party’s failure to resist Trump to drive the party’s approval numbers down a bit.

But when Democrats get a chance to resist Trumpism in 2026, they certainly will unite in that effort. They will do so again in 2028.

In a way, the Democrats’ low approval rating, coupled with the 2024 election results, shows that the party is not dead. Its 2024 presidential candidate lost the popular vote narrowly. Democrats nearly captured the House. They won 17 of 32 Senate races including those in the following states Trump carried: Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Arizona. The only swing state the GOP Senate candidate carried was Pennsylvania.

The Democrats weren’t quite as unpopular in November 2024 as they are today, but their approval rating was low, nonetheless. If they could do as well as they did that year with low popularity, it’s easy to envisage them making a strong comeback if their approval rating rises.

Will it? The Democrats’ antics during Trump’s address to Congress aren’t the way forward, but neither are they likely to prevent a comeback. They make Democrats look frustrated by their impotence, but not dead.

During Trump’s first State of the Union Address in 2017, the party’s female representatives dressed in white (something about the Handmaid’s tale, I think). They looked ridiculous, but the Dems had a great election year in 2018.

In 2020, Nancy Pelosi ripped up the text of Trump’s speech. Later that year, Joe Biden defeated Trump.

Republican antics on the House floor haven’t backfired either. In 2009, Joe Wilson shouted “you lie” at Barack Obama during his address. Republicans shellacked Democrats in 2010.

What must the Democrats do to win going forward? James Carville’s answer is, nothing. Just sit back, play rope-a-dope, and watch Trump become less and less popular.

Carville is right to this extent: If the economy tanks, Trump will become very unpopular and the Dems will come back strong. On the other hand, if the pain associated with Trump’s policies is short-lived, Republicans will flourish — if not in 2026 then in 2028.

The Democrats goal should be to position themselves to win in a so-so economy. What must they do to accomplish this?

The answer to this question centers around their approach to the two areas that have cost them so much popularity: immigration and wokeism.

The smarter leaders of the party already are backing away from the least popular aspects of wokeism. On the most toxic woke issue — boys and men competing against girls and women in sports — Gavin Newsom has taken the popular, common sense position. I expect similarly ambitious Democrats to do the same.

Such conversions notwithstanding, the Dems will remain the party of woke. But not to the extent that it likely will meaningfully hamper their election efforts, provided that the candidates they present in the next presidential race and key Senatorial battles back off from wokeism. A “Sister Souljah moment” or two would help.

Immigration presents more of a challenge. Whatever the Democrats say about the issue now, Biden’s abject weakness on illegal immigration for three-and-a-half years won’t be forgotten. I think it will take many election cycles before voters trust the Democrats on immigration policy.

However, if Trump’s policies largely solve the problem of illegal immigration, the issue will no longer be in the forefront of voters’ minds. Ronald Reagan’s successes in foreign policy and tax policy pushed these issues into the background. The success of tough-on-crime policies took that issue off the table.

The same thing can happen with immigration policy, provided the Democrats don’t shoot themselves in the foot. They can object if Trump engages in mass deportations perceived to be particularly inhumane, but they shouldn’t get worked up over the deportation of members of the notorious Tren de Aragua prison gang, even if it turns out that the Trump administration willfully violated a court order.

I think it’s fair to say that Trump won the 2024 election because of the economy and because he took positions on hot-button that were considered more closely aligned with common sense than those of the Democrats. The economy will likely be the main driver of the next major elections. However, if the economy is neither good nor bad enough to dictate the outcomes, the Democrats have a decent chance of prevailing if (perhaps with Republican help) they close the common sense gap.

In any case, to me they don’t look dead.