-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
Donald Trump has made politics into a dystopian reality show he loves to host, but Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries are playing by the old rules — and the mismatch may cause Democrats to get blamed for a government shutdown.
This is not because they’re dumb (they’re not) or incompetent (as the top Democrats of the Senate and House and as representatives of New York, both have risen to positions that require a Lyndon Baines Johnson-esque dexterity most of us couldn’t sustain for a single PTA meeting).
You can see it playing out in the government shutdown. Schumer and Jeffries seem almost neurologically incapable of operating in the world Trump has created — one where politics is less about governing or even persuasion, and more about staying on offense and generating spectacle.
Schumer exudes old-fashioned backroom politics and insider deal-making, which is another way of saying that he’s scripted, sweaty and stilted. It’s not that he’s bad at speaking; it’s that the kind of speaking he has mastered — the methodical, over-enunciated style that once charmed donors and editorial boards — is the equivalent of trying to fax something in 2025.
Jeffries, by contrast, is calm and disciplined. He speaks slowly, often channeling a rhythmic pattern that is reminiscent of a preacher or litigator. In a different era — the kind of era when “normal politics” still existed — this trait might have worked brilliantly. Today, it just feels tired. He’s supposed to be the hip one, once marketed as a “bad, brilliant brother from Brooklyn.” But his recent attempts at communication feel more like a corporate onboarding seminar.
And it’s not like he’s compensating for this shortcoming by electrifying the progressive base. Jeffries’ recent praise for New York Mayor Eric Adams (calling him a man who “served courageously and authentically for decades”) was a bit like praising Nickelback for artistic innovation. It’s not just inaccurate; it’s weirdly tone deaf to the moment.
To be fair, competing with Trump’s megaphone requires a skill set that is closer to professional wrestling than to 20th century politics. Trump is chaotic and often incoherent to the point of parody. But, and this is key, he never sounds like a normal politician.
In a game where authenticity — however poorly defined and cynically constructed — is the only real currency, the Democrats’ undynamic duo come across as high-functioning androids.
Countering Trump’s superpower calls for Democrats who can compete in the attention economy: leaders who feel authentic, actually enjoy picking constant political fights and understand that “going viral” is the new “getting quoted in the New York Times.”
Indeed, the only Democrats who have shown any capacity for being able to survive in this era have been Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Schumer and Jeffries do not have these skills, despite having plenty of material to work with.
Case in point: Republicans are about to make healthcare more expensive for millions of Americans. In theory, that’s a devastating talking point. In practice, it’s difficult to imagine Schumer and Jeffries delivering it in a way that can compete with Trump’s bogus assertion that the Democrats are shutting down the government because they want free healthcare for illegal immigrants and “transgender for everybody,” whatever that means.
Faced with these mistruths and the anemic response we’re getting from Schumer and Jeffries, the best-case scenario may be that Republicans — by virtue of being the “anti-government” party — take some blame for a government shutdown. But that’s not a strategy. That’s hoping partisan inertia is still on your side.
Regardless, the shutdown is merely the latest example of Democrats struggling to compete with MAGA. The larger problem is that the Democratic Party doesn’t really have a communicator right now. It hasn’t had one since Barack Obama left the stage.
It’s probably not fair to compare a congressional leader with a presidential candidate. But even by the standards of modern congressional leaders, Schumer and Jeffries are ill-equipped for the task at hand.
Democrats need someone with Newt Gingrich’s manic energy, revolutionary zeal and theatrical flair, coupled with Nancy Pelosi’s more pragmatic toughness and ruthless discipline. This is to say, someone who understands that politics is now a form of entertainment, but who still has the moral seriousness to prevent it from devolving totally into nihilism.
Instead, they’ve got two men who might as well be AM radio hosts trying to livestream on Twitch.
Ultimately, the Democrats’ communications crisis won’t be solved until they have a presidential nominee who can actually speak the language of the moment. Until they can find one, Democrats are stuck with two guys who are no match against a man who has turned political chaos into performance art.
And if Democrats don’t find one — and soon! — they won’t just lose the narrative: They’ll lose the country that depends on it.
Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”
More to Read
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries are fundamentally mismatched for the political era Trump has created, where politics functions more as spectacle and entertainment rather than traditional governing or persuasion.
- Schumer embodies outdated backroom politics with a scripted, methodical speaking style that feels as obsolete as trying to send a fax in 2025, making him ineffective against Trump’s chaotic but authentic-seeming approach.
- Jeffries, despite being marketed as the hip “bad, brilliant brother from Brooklyn,” comes across as tired and corporate, with his slow, rhythmic speaking style reminiscent of a preacher or litigator that might have worked in an era of “normal politics” but feels disconnected from current political realities.
- Both leaders function like “high-functioning androids” in a political landscape where authenticity is the primary currency, failing to compete in the attention economy that rewards going viral over traditional media coverage.
- The Democratic Party lacks effective communicators since Barack Obama’s departure, with only Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Gavin Newsom demonstrating the theatrical flair and revolutionary energy needed to match Trump’s performance art approach to politics.
- Despite having strong material to work with, such as Republicans making healthcare more expensive, Schumer and Jeffries cannot deliver messaging that competes with Trump’s ability to control narratives through spectacle and misinformation.
- Democrats need leaders who combine Newt Gingrich’s manic energy and theatrical flair with Nancy Pelosi’s pragmatic toughness, understanding that politics has become entertainment while maintaining moral seriousness to prevent complete nihilism.
Different views on the topic
- Democrats are taking principled stands on substantive policy issues during the government shutdown, including fighting to maintain healthcare subsidies and protections that directly benefit millions of Americans, rather than simply failing at communication tactics[1][2].
- Democratic leaders are refusing to capitulate to what they view as unreasonable Republican demands that would reverse important legislative achievements, demonstrating strategic discipline rather than communication incompetence[1].
- The shutdown reflects genuine policy disagreements about healthcare access, government spending priorities, and regulatory protections, suggesting that Democrats are focused on governing substance rather than just political theater[1].
- Democratic opposition stems from defending programs that serve vulnerable populations, including veterans, seniors, and low-income families who depend on government services, indicating that their approach prioritizes policy outcomes over political performance[1].
- Some observers argue that Democrats’ measured, institutional approach to politics maintains important democratic norms and prevents the complete degradation of governing into pure spectacle, even if it appears less dynamic[1].
- The traditional political skills that Schumer and Jeffries possess, including coalition-building and legislative expertise, remain essential for actual governance even if they don’t generate viral moments or dominate news cycles[2].