Donald Trump’s first term saw a government heavily influenced by the ultra-wealthy, with his cabinet comprising multimillionaires and billionaires, such as Betsy DeVos and Wilbur Ross. As Trump begins a second term, he appears set to replicate this plutocratic model.
Reports suggest his administration will feature a roster of billionaires, corporate executives, and loyalists, with figures like Elon Musk positioned to lead efforts to shrink federal authority. This continuation of a government “of the rich, by the rich” is emblematic of Trumpism’s core ethos, but the Democrats’ inability to counter it effectively reveals deep flaws within their own party.
The Democratic Party’s reliance on big-money donors has compromised its credibility as a champion of working-class interests. This dependency, exacerbated during the neoliberal era, coincided with the decline of labor unions and the loosening of campaign finance restrictions, leaving both major parties beholden to the wealthy.
Although Bernie Sanders’s grassroots campaigns in 2016 and 2020 demonstrated the potential for small-donor politics, the Democrats ultimately failed to break free from the influence of plutocrats. This dynamic came to the fore during Kamala Harris’s 2024 campaign, where wealthy donors pressured her to abandon an initially populist message.
Harris began her campaign echoing the economic populism of President Joe Biden, who had worked closely with Sanders to craft progressive domestic policies. However, following Biden’s withdrawal, the Harris campaign became increasingly reliant on wealthy donors to close fundraising gaps.
Democrats Struggle to Counter Trump’s Plutocratic Agenda Amid Campaigns Shaped by Wealthy Donors
Figures like Mark Cuban, a prominent billionaire donor, played a significant role in shaping the campaign’s direction. Cuban’s influence led Harris to shift away from policies targeting corporate power, such as price-gouging regulations and higher taxes on the wealthy, undermining her populist credibility and alienating key voter groups.
The campaign’s strategy to court anti-Trump Republicans further diluted its message. Harris frequently praised figures like Liz Cheney and Dick Cheney in an effort to attract disillusioned conservatives.
However, this approach failed to generate meaningful Republican support and alienated progressive and working-class voters. The Democrats’ ongoing struggle to balance populist rhetoric with the demands of wealthy donors deepened voter skepticism and contributed to long-term losses among the working class.
Harris’s campaign ultimately exemplified the broader challenges facing the Democratic Party. Instead of presenting a clear alternative to Trump’s plutocratic governance, her reliance on corporate surrogates and a donor-driven strategy highlighted the party’s own entanglement with wealthy elites.
This contradiction undermined efforts to mobilize grassroots support and weakened the party’s ability to counter Trumpism’s appeal to disaffected voters.
As Trump’s second term begins, the urgency to counter his administration’s plutocratic and authoritarian tendencies grows. Addressing this challenge will require a renewed focus on policies that genuinely address inequality and resonate with working-class Americans.
The Democratic Party must confront its dependency on wealthy donors and embrace a politics that prioritizes the needs of ordinary citizens over elite interests. Only through such a transformation can it regain credibility and effectively oppose Trumpism’s hold on the nation.
