Democrat Voters Pining for Change but Unwilling to Change

It is often observed that the 20th century’s most acclaimed theoretical physicist, Albert Einstein, said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” Though the quote is likely misattributed, it does appear to hold true in all things. These days, it could apply to how Democrat voters choose their elected representatives. An article published by Politico on June 22 inadvertently – one assumes – demonstrates this very point. New York state residents are angry, the article’s authors assert. Yet, rather than change direction, Democrat voters in the Empire State seem ready to double down on the policies that have fueled their displeasure.

New York has been a solidly blue state for decades. As is the case in almost all the other 49 US states, most of New York is red, in terms of territory, but Democrat voters dominate in the most densely populated urban areas. Thus, the Democratic Party has been the controlling political force for as long as most people can remember.

Democrat Voters Want Change – But Not That Much Change

One would think, then, that New York’s voters, tired of “the establishment” and “increasingly upset over the cost of living,” as the Politico article suggests, would perhaps look to a change of direction. After all, in that state, the Democratic Party is the establishment. If the cost of living is too high, that’s because Democrat policies have made it so. And if voters are unhappy with how things are going, perhaps they should consider voting for candidates from a different party.

Instead, it looks like Democrat voters are warming to primary challengers, assuming that ousting incumbents, but sticking with the party that created the conditions that have dissatisfied them, is going to produce a different result.

Politico gives a couple of examples. Democratic Rep. Adriano Espaillat faces a primary challenge from Darializa Avila Chevalier, a community organizer. Nydia Velázquez is retiring from Congress after 33 years in the House of Representatives. She’s a 73-year-old Democrat who has represented New York’s 7th district since 2013. Her preferred successor is Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso – but he will have to battle it out in the primaries with Assemblymember Claire Valdez.

Velázquez was hardly a moderate, but both Chevalier and Valdez are radical leftists backed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani. Like Mamdani, both are members of the Democratic Socialists of America. So, are candidates like that going to break the establishment? Surely they will – but then they will become the establishment, just with more radical versions of the same policies.

One might call this rage politics. Newcomers to the political world are campaigning on channeling the dissatisfaction of ordinary Democrat voters. It’s almost as if Democrats are looking for some kind of Trumpian populist takeover of their party. That’s not what they are going to get.

President Donald Trump, who, contrary to what a faction of his supporters appears to believe, is not the Messiah with papal infallibility, is nevertheless by and large a populist. When he got to the White House, he didn’t double down on what Republicans had been doing for years; he changed the game – he altered the very nature of the party. That’s why the GOP old guard either openly mocked him or held their noses and pretended to go along for as long as they could.

These upstart Democrats are not populists, despite what they or their fans in the media might say. They will not change the course of the good ship Democrat – they will cry “damn the torpedoes!” and order full steam ahead.

Democrat voters will simply be exchanging socialism lite for the full-flavor version. Mostly the same policies, but implemented at a faster and more haphazard pace. Iconic British rock band The Who wrote a poignant song describing this very situation. The 1971 track Won’t Get Fooled Again includes the eternal closing verse:

“Yeah“Meet the new boss“Same as the old boss.”

Doing the Same Thing With Different Results?

It’s the same phenomenon red-state conservatives decry: Democrat voters flee blue states because the policies of the people they elected have made their lives too difficult, but when they settle in red states, they vote for the same party that, if it takes power, will pursue the very same policies from which they previously escaped. It’s the socialists who, when confronted with the catastrophic history of their preferred ideology, cry: “But that wasn’t real socialism!”

Politico quotes Republican pollster John McLaughlin: “If you’re perceived as being part of the status quo, then you’ve got a problem,” he said. “Regardless of which party, if you’re perceived as bringing about change, you’ll win.”

Yet, change should mean change, rather than just a more extreme version of what is already being done.

Perhaps it is better – and logical – to effect change by electing people who have an agenda that is fundamentally different from “the establishment.” That’s what Trump voters did – albeit that, at least in some ways, Trump turned out not to be fundamentally different. Democratic voters across the country, however, are not voting for fundamental change. Rather, they are voting for a rapid magnification and acceleration of the very policies with which they have become frustrated.

And when you do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result – well, that’s the definition of insanity.