03/23/2026
My Latest in The Nation
A Dangerous and Consistent Misreading of Trump’s Appeal
Trump didn’t win by moderating. He won by attacking a system millions already believed was broken.
There is a dangerous and increasingly dominant misreading of Trump’s appeal inside Democratic politics. Matthew Yglesias, Harvard grad and New York City native, has made a career as the working-class soothsayer to the elite. He tells corporate Democrats what working-class Americans think. And, because it’s what they want to hear, they listen. His latest theory: The party is too woke, too ideologically rigid, and if candidates would just moderate on a handful of cultural issues, the working-class voters they’ve lost would come back. It sounds reasonable. It has charts. It cites academic survey experiments.
Both Yglesias and the editors of The New York Times treat Donald Trump’s victories as evidence that moderation works, pointing to positions he walked back on Medicare cuts, the Iraq War, opposition to gay and le***an soldiers serving openly. That reading fundamentally misunderstands what Trump did. He didn’t win by meeting us halfway on policy details. He won by going to war with the institutions we blamed for our decline. Both parties, the media, the donor class, the trade deals that gutted manufacturing, the consensus that had governed Washington for 30 years. None of that is moderation. That is a frontal assault on the status quo. What he quietly dropped were the positions that most obviously signaled he was working for the same donor class as everyone else.
Trump didn’t win by moderating. He won by attacking a system millions already believed was broken.