Democrats in Denver have found a new way to argue about an old question: do we work with Donald Trump or fight him? It makes for a lively panel. It is also the wrong question, and the answers on offer show why.
Start with James Talarico's suggestion that Democrats help make Trump's last two years "productive." I understand the instinct. Voters are tired of gridlock and want someone to lower their rent. But productive for whom? Trump does not negotiate the way a Senate dealmaker does. He treats agreements as leverage and Congress as an obstacle. Democrats who walk into the Oval Office hoping for a bipartisan handshake are likely to leave with a photo op for him and a broken promise for them. Cooperation is only a virtue when the other side is bargaining in good faith, and nothing in Trump's record suggests it is.
The better answer came from the governors. Abigail Spanberger's idea is to send broadly popular legislation to the president without begging for his blessing, and Mikie Sherrill is right that Democrats should write their own agenda with whatever majorities voters have handed them. That is not obstruction. It is a trap that works. Pass a bill that caps what people pay for something they cannot avoid, such as housing costs, junk fees or medical bills. Put it on his desk. If he signs it, voters got relief. If he vetoes it, or lets Republicans bury it, then he has chosen the companies over the customers, on the record, in the middle of a cost-of-living squeeze. Either outcome beats a closed-door negotiation that produces nothing but a statement about "finding common ground."
Josh Shapiro is right that voters want practical results on costs. But "practical" cannot become a euphemism for small. Democrats have spent years being cautious about big economic fights and then wondering why voters could not tell what they stood for. People do not need a white paper on affordability. They need a rent number, a premium number and a grocery number that move.
The quieter fight in Denver may matter more. Hakeem Jeffries says the caucus will debate term limits for committee leaders in December. Rep. Susie Lee wants a four-term cap on top committee posts, and some senior committee Democrats are against it. Of course they are. The seniority system is a machine for turning longevity into power, and the people who benefit from it rarely volunteer to dismantle it.
This is not a trivial matter of internal etiquette. Committee leaders decide which investigations happen, which bills get hearings and who gets to be the face of the party on the day's biggest issue. Democrats have just watched the cost of a gerontocracy in public: ranking members who should have stepped aside, and younger members who had to fight their own colleagues for a chance to lead. A party that asks the country for change cannot credibly protect its own incumbents from it.
Term limits are not a perfect fix. Experience matters, and a crude rule could push out a talented chair for no reason other than the calendar. Lee's four-term limit is a starting point, not scripture. But the senior members who oppose it should have to explain why the party's best interest happens to match their own tenure.
The two debates are really one. Democrats say they want to show voters they can deliver. That means picking fights where the public is already on their side, forcing Trump to own his choices, and building a caucus that rewards energy and results over time served. A party that cannot reform its own committee ladder will have trouble convincing anyone it can reform health care or housing. Voters gave Democrats a chance. They should not spend it on a seminar.
