Muslim World Report

How Democratic Exclusion Fueled the Rise of Trumpism

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Jun 9, 2025 10:14 AM | 9 min read | 1875 words

TL;DR: The Democratic Party’s exclusion of reform-minded figures has deepened internal divisions, contributing to the rise of Trumpism and populism. As it faces the 2024 election, the party must address these fractures or risk further alienating its base and empowering extremist movements.

The Democratic Party’s Internal Struggles: Consequences for the Political Landscape

Over the past decade, the Democratic Party has faced a series of internal challenges that have profoundly reshaped its identity and the American political landscape. The party’s exclusionary tactics against reform-minded figures, such as Bernie Sanders and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have not only marginalized these voices but also contributed to a climate ripe for the rise of Trumpism. This exclusion is not merely a failure of inclusivity; it reflects a significant disconnect between the party establishment and a substantial portion of its base. This disconnect has led to:

  • Disaffection
  • Disengagement
  • Empowerment of a populist backlash

The events surrounding the 2016 and 2020 elections reveal systemic issues within the Democratic Party. Bernie Sanders’ grassroots support showcased a palpable desire for progressive change; however, he was often undermined by party insiders who favored traditional candidates like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. While some assert that the 2016 Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails reveal a coordinated effort to stifle Sanders’ campaign, it is crucial to acknowledge that these internal discussions reflected frustration with Sanders’ critiques rather than a conspiracy against him. The truth is:

  • Sanders lost the 2020 primaries because the majority of primary voters did not select him.
  • His candidacy depended on a split among more moderate candidates, which did not materialize as he had hoped.

The narrative that Democrats are solely to blame for these outcomes risks oversimplifying a complex electoral process and disregarding the agency of the voters themselves (Fiorina & Abrams, 2008).

The 2024 election marks a critical juncture, as RFK Jr.’s decision to run as an independent underscores a troubling trend: potential candidates capable of mobilizing voters around reformist ideas are being sidelined by a party reluctant to adapt. His polling performance, peaking at around 20%, illustrates that while he garnered attention, he did not secure meaningful support among primary voters. His decision to withdraw before fully competing raises questions about the legitimacy of claims that he was excluded by the party (Hobolt, 2016). This pattern of exclusion has created a rift within the Democratic Party but has also had the unintended consequence of fueling a populist movement led by figures like Donald Trump. The Democratic establishment’s refusal to embrace reformist ideas has left a vacuum that Trumpism has eagerly filled, thriving on resentment and division.

What if the Democratic Party Embraces Reform?

If the Democratic Party were to genuinely embrace reform-minded candidates and policies, it could potentially heal the rifts within its base. By actively promoting candidates like Sanders or endorsing progressive platforms, the party could mobilize a broader electorate, particularly:

  • Younger voters
  • Disenfranchised communities

This inclusive approach could:

  • Directly challenge the dominance of populism
  • Present a viable, alternative vision for the future

The benefits of reform could extend beyond immediate electoral outcomes. A revitalized Democratic Party could attract independent voters disillusioned with both major parties, creating a more robust political landscape (Cox, 2017). Moreover, a commitment to reform could energize grassroots movements, enabling citizens to feel that their voices are genuinely heard in the political process.

What if Internal Divisions Worsen?

Conversely, if the Democratic Party continues its current path of exclusion and infighting, it risks further fragmentation. The departure of influential figures like RFK Jr. to run as independents could encourage more candidates to follow suit, splintering the vote among those yearning for progressive change. This division could exacerbate the party’s inability to win critical elections and may open the door for more extreme populist candidates (Inglehart & Norris, 2016).

In this scenario, we could witness:

  • A significant shift in the political landscape, with the Democratic Party sidelined in favor of more radical populism
  • Potential destabilization of the broader political system

Such a transformation would not only affect the party but could also destabilize civil rights, social justice, and international relations. The erosion of democratic norms and governance structures could become a reality as factions vie for power in a fractious political environment.

What if a New Political Movement Emerges?

The discontent within the Democratic Party may pave the way for a new political movement that transcends traditional party lines. Should a coalition of reformers unite under a different banner—drawing support from independent voters and disaffected Democrats—it could reshape the political landscape significantly. This new movement could advocate for policies that resonate with the public, such as:

  • Universal healthcare
  • Climate justice
  • Systemic reforms aimed at reducing inequality (Speed & Mannion, 2017)

The emergence of such a movement would challenge the conventional two-party system, potentially leading to a more multipolar political landscape. This shift could invigorate citizen participation but could also complicate political dynamics, creating further divisions among voters.

To navigate its internal struggles and avoid the pitfalls of exclusion, the Democratic Party must consider several strategic maneuvers:

Prioritizing Genuine Dialogue

Foremost is prioritizing genuine dialogue with its base. Engaging with grassroots organizations, listening to constituents’ concerns, and actively involving them in decision-making processes can bridge the chasm between establishment figures and reform advocates. By cultivating a culture of inclusion, the party can reduce disenchantment among its supporters (Huq & Ginsburg, 2017).

Reassessing the Party’s Platform

Another essential strategy is to reassess the party’s platform. Emphasizing policies that resonate with a broad spectrum of voters can counteract the allure of populism. This includes advocating for:

  • Systemic reforms addressing economic inequality
  • Environmental sustainability
  • Social justice

By committing to a progressive agenda that appeals to diverse demographics, the Democratic Party can reclaim its position as a champion of the people (Kenny, 2017).

Confronting Leadership Dynamics

Additionally, the party must confront its leadership dynamics, critically evaluating the role of entrenched establishment figures in shaping candidate viability. It is essential to ensure that internal processes do not systematically disadvantage reform-minded candidates. This entails fostering a culture that values new voices and innovative ideas rather than relying solely on established norms.

Exploring Alliances with Independent Movements

Lastly, the Democratic Party should consider forming alliances with independent movements and other progressive organizations. Collaborating with like-minded groups can amplify efforts and create a united front against rising populism. These alliances could serve as a powerful force in mobilizing voters and creating a more equitable political landscape.

The Broader Implications of Internal Struggles

The internal struggles within the Democratic Party have broader implications for American democracy. As populism continues to rise, the party’s failure to adapt could lead to significant shifts in voter alignment and loyalty. Voters, particularly young people and marginalized communities, are increasingly looking for alternatives that align with their values. If the Democratic Party fails to present a compelling case for reform and inclusivity, it risks further alienation from these critical voter blocs.

The consequences of these internal dynamics may not only impact electoral outcomes but also shape the future of democratic governance in the United States. A fragmented political landscape, characterized by disillusionment and disengagement, could lead to increased polarization and a decline in civic engagement (Inglehart & Norris, 2016). The challenge before the Democratic Party is not only to win elections but to restore faith in democratic institutions by fostering a sense of belonging and representation among all citizens.

The 2024 Election: A Pivotal Moment

As the Democratic Party approaches the 2024 election, the stakes are higher than ever. The decisions made today will influence not only the electoral outcomes of tomorrow but also set the trajectory for the party’s future. The emergence of third-party movements, the rise of independent candidates, and the rekindling of populist sentiments all present significant challenges.

Engaging constituents in a meaningful dialogue about their concerns and priorities is essential. For example, issues such as economic inequality, healthcare access, and climate change resonate with many voters. However, if the party continues to overlook these concerns in favor of maintaining the status quo, it risks losing the trust and support of its base.

The implications of the 2024 election extend beyond party lines. A divided Democratic Party that fails to unite its factions could lead to the ascendance of populist movements that directly challenge the core tenets of democracy. Ensuring that the voices of all constituents are heard in political discourse is essential for maintaining a healthy democracy.

Lasting Impacts of Exclusionary Practices

The exclusionary practices within the Democratic Party have lasting impacts that extend beyond individual elections. The party’s inability or unwillingness to address the needs of its base may create a cycle of disillusionment that is difficult to break. Voters who feel ignored or marginalized may turn away from the political process altogether, leading to lower turnout rates and disengagement.

Moreover, the rise of populist movements often capitalizes on this disillusionment. Candidates who position themselves as outsiders or disruptors can gain traction among voters longing for change. The Democratic Party must recognize that its internal struggles directly contribute to the conditions that allow populism to flourish.

The International Dimension

The implications of the Democratic Party’s internal struggles also have an international dimension. Populism is a global phenomenon reshaping political landscapes in numerous countries. The rise of leaders who utilize populist rhetoric to address economic grievances and social discontent is a trend observed in various democracies worldwide.

As the Democratic Party navigates its internal challenges, it must also consider the global context. The interconnectedness of today’s political landscape means that domestic actions can have far-reaching consequences. A failure to address internal divides and promote inclusivity may embolden populist leaders in other nations, fostering a cycle of extremism that undermines democratic norms and institutions.

Conclusion

The Democratic Party stands at a crossroads, grappling with significant internal challenges that could reshape its identity and the broader political landscape. By actively engaging its base, reassessing its platform, confronting leadership dynamics, and exploring alliances with independent movements, the party has the opportunity to redefine its narrative. Each decision made today will reverberate in the years to come, shaping the trajectory of American democracy and the Democratic Party’s role within it.

References

  • Cox, M. J. (2017). The Rise of Populism and the Crisis of Globalisation: Brexit, Trump and Beyond. Irish Studies in International Affairs, 28(1), 12-26.
  • Fiorina, M. P., & Abrams, S. J. (2008). Political Polarization in the American Public. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 563-588.
  • Hobolt, S. B. (2016). The Brexit vote: a divided nation, a divided continent. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(9), 1259-1277.
  • Huq, A. Z., & Ginsburg, T. (2017). How to Lose a Constitutional Democracy. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2901776
  • Kenny, M. (2017). Back to the populist future?: understanding nostalgia in contemporary ideological discourse. Journal of Political Ideologies, 22(2), 172-190.
  • Kriesi, H., Grande, E., Lachat, R., Dolezal, M., Bornschier, S., & Frey, T. (2006). Globalization and the transformation of the national political space: Six European countries compared. European Journal of Political Research, 45(6), 921-956.
  • Speed, E., & Mannion, R. (2017). The Rise of Post-truth Populism in Pluralist Liberal Democracies: Challenges for Health Policy. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 6(2), 1-10.
  • Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2016). Trump, Brexit and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash. Harvard Kennedy School.
← Prev Next →