Potential Shifts in Democratic Strategies
Back in 2016, Michael Anton stirred up debate with his essay “The Flight 93 Election,” suggesting that the stakes between Trump and Clinton were about survival. His notion that a Clinton win would ensure Democratic dominance—leaving Republicans with no choice but to act aggressively—seemed far-fetched then, and perhaps even more so now.
Looking back, if Hillary had won, the pandemic might have derailed her presidency by 2020, similar to Trump. But, well, things might play out differently this time around.
Today, Democrats are exploring strategies that would have seemed radical in 2016. Court packing—or as they prefer to call it, “court reform”—is gaining traction among mainstream Democrats.
Recently, James Carville suggested packing the courts. Moreover, if D.C. and Puerto Rico secure statehood, which could happen by 2028, this would significantly alter the political landscape.
Kamala Harris, a likely candidate for the 2028 Democratic nomination, echoed this sentiment. She also included the abolition of the electoral college in her proposals.
“The new Congress will need to address the Supreme Court. Everything’s on the table,” stated House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who has aspirations to become the speaker next year.
Jamie Raskin, a leading Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, argued for adding four justices to align with the 13 judges on the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.
If the Democratic Party adopts these ideas as its agenda by 2028, it could be one of the most radical platforms seen in major U.S. politics. Even a reconfiguration of the Supreme Court would create significant upheaval.
The electoral system, foundational to presidential elections, may also be overridden. The goal behind these moves appears to be the appointment of four progressive judges and the addition of four Democratic senators—essentially, a power grab that could jeopardize the legitimacy of these institutions.
This raises questions about public perception: What if many believe the Supreme Court is compromised—not due to its rulings, but because it is being manipulated to reach certain ideological ends?
Democrats may argue that Republicans have already set a precedent, even if through conventional means—they shaped the court’s current conservative majority by winning elections and confirming judges under the established rules.
Did Republicans play hardball? Certainly. Their hold on the court came from a mix of winning elections and strategic timing.
Yet, creating new positions out of nowhere or pressuring conservative justices to resign through dubious means would clearly shift things into a realm of manipulation.
Such actions could lead to a scenario where one part of the country stops recognizing the Supreme Court’s authority, setting the stage for significant conflict. The same concerns would arise if a newly packed Congress lost its legitimacy in the eyes of the public.
Democrats feel vindicated in considering any steps that match, or go beyond, Trump’s aggressive approach. However, Trump’s methods—including legislative maneuvers, executive actions, and gerrymandering—have precedents set by Democratic leaders.
Yet, Democrats aren’t viewing it through the same lens; their disdain for Trump outweighs their feelings towards any previous Democratic president.
If they gain full control in 2028, there’s a real possibility they might push the boundaries of America’s constitutional framework into unknown territory.
In short, over a dozen years have passed since the Republican Party’s dramatic maneuvers began, which might put our system at a critical juncture.
