Our pens were mighty! What now?

See Disclaimer.

Early on the morning of November 3^rd, I wrote my first ever political poem. Integrated in ‘With our mighty pens,’ it was so full of election hope that it ran the risk of looking utterly naive by the end of the night. A risk that the poem could easily endure, but that country and world could not.

In the end, voters delivered: Our pens were truly mighty at the ballot box. Democrats, independents and even Republicans and third-party folks—we came together. We did not simply flip Congress. We did it with aplomb—leading to surprisingly large blue majorities in both houses. Majorities with enough teeth to possibly counter some of the excesses and authoritarian tendencies of this administration. A blue victory that extended to many state governors, attorney generals, and legislatures—all foundational pieces of our government.

Appreciation and congratulations are in order: To the voters for believing in democracy and the election system. To the state and local officers who ran the elections (mostly) smoothly. To the Democratic leadership who recruited strong candidates and made strategic investments even in red territory. To the blue and independent candidates who offered viable alternatives to Trumpism. Not forgetting those who may not feel like winners today, but nonetheless accepted defeat peacefully and democratically.

But an electoral victory—even one of this magnitude—is just a beginning. What happens next will matter deeply. Which raises the question: What do we want to happen?

I have no answer that is representative of us as a People. But I have the perspective of an independent voter. A voter who is not beholden to any party but who recognizes that red and blue are, at this point in our history, fundamentally different from each other. And a voter who thus has very different messages to each main party.

To Democrats, I must be clear: I chose blue down ticket first and foremost because I saw Mr. Trump on the ballot. Which he was, as a subservient Republican-led Congress bears clear responsibility for the excesses of the administration. If Congress remained red, the level of excesses would only grow in the two upcoming years. Those excesses have already cost country and world dearly, with a footprint of impact that will likely run deep into the next generations. The president’s authoritarian tendencies needed to be countered, and the downward spiral had to be slowed down and ultimately reversed. A blue Congress was—and is—our best hope at the moment.

Regardless of why and how each of us voted, Democrats should remember that the upcoming Congress will carry the hopes and expectations of many Americans. While we don’t all think alike, most might agree that Congress should listen to voters and act in the People’s interest. And we might further agree that voters just sent a few clear messages: solve pocketbook issues; stop wars of choice; stop arbitrary tariffs; stop corruption; protect civil rights; be sensible on immigration; and more.

Important, commonsense, messages like these require ‘focus-and-deliver’ answers. With our contrarian administration and the limits of Congressional power, this likely means solving low-hanging fruit issues in the next two years, while also laying the groundwork for structural solutions in the following four years.

Take pocketbook issues, a perennial voter concern that demands focus and creativity. “It is the economy, stupid” is a phrase famously coined to stress the economy as a hands-on priority of Bill Clinton’s administrations. The country responded:  Under Clinton (1993–2001, the last six years with Republican majorities in Congress), the US enjoyed a distinctively sustained economic expansion, with strong job creation, low unemployment, and a record federal budget surplus. The world is different now, and different policies are required. But the same ‘focus-and-deliver’ commitment is needed, starting this January with a view to full implementation in 2029-2033.

Of course, the economy does not exist in isolation, as we were reminded by the prices at the pump due to the war of choice on Iran. By the impact of unreasonable immigration policies on farming and thus grocery prices. By the absurd repudiation of clean energy, ceding to China the leadership in this powerful engine of economic development. By denialism of climate change, leading to sky-rocketing price increases and even unavailability of insurance policies. By cuts in Obamacare subsidies, leaving so many Americans without the ability to pay for adequate health insurance. By impending cuts in Social Security (vital to so many Americans), just years ahead if no action is taken. And far more.

The challenges ahead are tremendous. Democrats need commitment, creativity, and leadership to deliver solutions. They should start by choosing their leaders wisely. The choice should be wide open, without being divisive. Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries are natural candidates to Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House, respectively, given their successful electoral strategy. But, as learned in 2024 with the ‘now-Biden-then-Kamala’ candidacy, suppressing competition is not a good strategy for the party. Let other candidates emerge. Let each candidate present their vision and platform. Then choose who—objectively—is best positioned to deliver for the voters, starting January and into 2028 and beyond. And, importantly, rally behind the winners—whoever they are, with unity not rancor. With egos left at the door. Please!

To Republicans, I would say that you too need to pay (even more) attention to the voters’ messages. Specially to the voters’ repudiation of Mr. Trump’s penchant for hate and division. Of his authoritarian practices, lax ethics, and disregard for facts and truth. Of his failed tariffs, wars of choice, and harsh immigration practices. Of the party that rubber stamped in Congress the excesses of the Executive branch.

Coming 2028 or in future cycles, you want to be an attractive alternative to Democrats. Our two-party system works best with healthy competition, with two viable parties with agendas that spark creativity and enable balance. Unfortunately, that is currently a mirage.

Your party has lost the dignity of a Mark Hatfield, a John McCain or a Mitt Romney. It has closed its doors to the decency of a Liz Cheney. It has handed Susan Collins a losing hand. It does not seem to listen to a Lisa Murkowski. It just elected Jim Jordan, a bare-knuckles fighter seemingly without a sense of substance and compromise, as House Minority Leader. It has accepted Stephen Miller as the new White House Chief of Staff, with no more than meek protests. You are not preparing to co-govern. You are preparing for a street fight. Exactly what voters, I believe, do not want, and will not tolerate coming 2028.

Please re-think your strategy and leadership. For the good of the country, but also in your own self-interest.

To Democrats and Republicans alike, a final message—in fact, a plea. The electorate is changing. More and more, neither of you have the voters’ unconditional loyalty—aside from fringes. In fact, many voters are arguably voting more against one of you than for the other.

As of this Summer, some 66.4% registered voters identified as either Democrats (36.0%) or Republicans (30.4%), versus 29.9% as independent or non-affiliated and 3.6% as members of other parties. Your two parties no longer represent the full spectrum of our nuanced political differences. Yet the system actively discourages the growth of small parties—which are limited by their inability to be viable, in a catch-22 of futility.

My reading is that our two-party system is at or near obsolescence (despite the current, justifiable, optimism because of vibrant new blue members-elects of Congress). It is no longer a competition of ideas, but rather a clash of identity politics at its worse. Recognizing this, Mr.  Trump ruthlessly became the first modern populist to take over a main party and empty it from its core values. He might well not be the last—to the detriment of both parties, country and People.

Maybe one or more other critical-size parties will emerge by skill or accident to dispute with you the trust of the electorate. Or maybe one of your parties will dwarf to let the other effectively take over the country. Or perhaps the system will break in some other, less obvious, way. But breaking it will, ultimately, if it does not fix itself.

Each of your parties can delay change, or you can instead be constructive agents of change. The latter option might be more in your interest than you may realize. Most of you, as individuals, got into politics for the right reasons: To serve country and People. Do you truly believe that this two-party system—with an ‘us versus them’ mentality—is letting you serve to the best of your ability? Or is the system diminishing you by making you into glorified cogs within a power-hungry, vote-counting congressional machine? Wouldn’t change be healthy to all?

President Kennedy often said that “a rising tide lifts all boats.” Could a multi-party system be for American parties—established, evolving or future—that rising tide? Could a no-party system? Or a system where parties offer guidance and support to their elected officers, without controlling their voices and votes? Isn’t it worth experimenting with alternative models to our current two-party system, in some safe(-ish) manner? Who is brave and visionary enough to lead?

— Antonio Baptista