The Democratic Gap

For years, the Democratic Party has struggled to translate its popularity into meaningful action. They could dominate elections repeatedly if they managed to shed their dependence on donor influence. Both major political parties are deeply entangled with corporations, wealthy businessmen, and foreign interests; their primary distinction lies in their stance on social issues. These social issues serve as a distraction, shielding the wealthy from becoming targets of political reform—a fact they are keenly aware of.

Social media platforms, whether intentionally or not, amplify this dynamic by perpetuating and evolving social issues. Across the political spectrum (though one side is far more culpable), misrepresentation, out-of-context narratives, and fear-mongering plague the media landscape. This divides our attention and redirects focus away from the pervasive corporate influence. Many believe that addressing corporate corruption requires first resolving social issues by defeating the opposing party.

However, the actual interests of most Americans overlap significantly when social issues are set aside. There is widespread agreement that corruption runs deep within the government and that taxpayer dollars are squandered on inefficiency. The divergence lies in how each side approaches these problems—albeit in vastly different ways.

While acknowledging the "both sides" argument, I must emphasize my progressive beliefs, which the current Republican Party fails to embody. Unfortunately, many Republicans have been misled—or willingly accept, due to preexisting biases—false narratives that justify Republican policies. These narratives are built on repeated lies, targeting an audience resistant to perspectives outside their ideological bubble.

In 2024, the Democratic Party failed to effectively communicate the urgency of voting against the Republican Party. Trump’s ability to manipulate and mislead convinced many that he could bring about positive change, while the Democratic Party faltered in presenting a compelling alternative. The root cause? Their unwillingness to break free from corporate influence. While the system necessitates donor money for reelection campaigns, this dependency ultimately led to Kamala’s defeat. More voters believed in Trump’s promises than in Kamala’s ability to deliver change. If only she had defied corporate interests instead of yielding to them.

History shows that when a party fails to rise to the occasion, either a new party emerges or the existing one undergoes a transformative shift. The Democratic Party faces a leadership void—a gap that, if filled, could rival Trump’s national popularity. Whoever becomes the next Democratic President of the United States not only will articulate the desires of the American people but also demonstrate a genuine commitment to achieving them, even if it means challenging donor influence. This will require confronting the true victor of every election since Reagan: the corporate world.

The bubbling movement holds the potential to produce the greatest political leader of the 21st century. In a century’s time, I hope students will study this era as a turning point—how the crises of the 2020s paved the way for prosperity in the later decades. But this vision will only be realized if someone steps up to fill the Democratic Gap.