Thinking Beyond Binary Politics
American politics has become binary to the point of absurdity. Increasingly, it’s not about what’s right or what works — it’s about who said it first.
Once an idea is voiced by one side, the other is reflexively against it. We’ve devolved into a game of opposites. If Democrats are for it, Republicans must be against it. If Trump says it, then by God, the opposition will twist itself in knots trying to prove why it’s a terrible idea — even if it’s something they once championed.
This isn’t a healthy system. It’s not a functioning democracy. It’s a feedback loop of oppositional behavior where no one truly leads — except the person who dares to speak first.
And unfortunately, that person, more often than not, is Donald Trump.
For all his recklessness, Trump drives the national conversation precisely because he doesn’t wait. He doesn’t poll test. He doesn’t strategize or triangulate. He simply blurts things out. And because he’s the first to speak, he becomes the reference point for everyone else, including Democrats, who too often define themselves by what he is not, rather than what they truly believe.
The cruel irony here is that the man who arguably gives the least thought to policy has become the country’s de facto thought leader. He dominates the narrative — not because his ideas are good, but because they’re original, or at least first. Everyone else just reacts. In this dynamic, Democrats are frequently stuck in a defensive crouch, fighting battles they didn’t choose, on terrain they didn’t pick, using language they didn’t write.
One side effect of this binary mode of politics is the death — or at least the dormancy — of ideology as a driving force in American life. Ideological consistency has been replaced by a sort of tribal reflex. Republicans who once thundered against tariffs now applaud them. Democrats who used to favor market reforms for drug pricing now hesitate if the wrong person proposes them.
Just look at Trump’s recent (and likely legally doomed) push for prescription drug price controls. It’s a classic Democratic idea. But because Trump’s the one who floated it, many Democrats find themselves nitpicking the details, hedging, hesitating. Yes, his plan is likely a political stunt, designed to fail in the courts so he can rage against the judiciary later. But the idea itself — bringing down drug costs — is good. It would help real people. If we let knee-jerk opposition define us, we miss the chance to do real good simply because we don’t want to give him a win.
And that’s the trap.
But here’s the opportunity: if we can think past this binary box — if we can use Trump’s lack of ideological roots to our advantage — we might just be able to make progress in spite of him. Trump wants to be liked. He wants credit. He wants to win the spotlight. If we handed him credit for Democratic policies he accidentally endorses, we could unlock real possibilities.
Imagine this: we win back the House. Maybe even the Senate. We pass a public option or even single-payer healthcare. We call it Trumpcare. Let him put his name on it in gold letters if that’s what it takes. Who cares? If the work gets done — if the people get the care they need — then let the man preen.
That’s not selling out. That’s winning smart.
We don’t have to like him. We don’t have to pretend he’s a good leader or an honest broker. But we can outmaneuver him — not by fighting him at every turn, but by seizing the strange, post-ideological void he’s created and using it to pass good policy under his nose.
Thinking past binary politics means realizing that every issue doesn’t have to be a turf war. We can get back to asking: What actually helps people? What makes life better? What moves us forward? And if the path to those answers happens to run through Trump’s ego — fine.
Let him have the credit. Let the people have the win.
