Liam Glavin ‘27 (he/him) is a government major from Falls Church, Virginia. He loves running, reading and spending time with friends and hopes to instill values of political and civic engagement across the community. Contact him at ljglavin@wm.edu.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own.
Mollie Shiflett ’26 makes many excellent points throughout her piece about the genuine harm likely to result from the Trump administration’s actions. For instance, she mentions the Trump administration’s decision to remove Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelan immigrants. Many of these people were fleeing the ongoing violence and instability in Venezuela. Their lives are now completely upended, and they risk the possibility of getting deported back to Venezuela. Shiflett also mentions the Trump administration’s plans to dismantle the Department of Education. This would be a horrifying action, particularly for us, because it could damage the operations of the College of William and Mary, which partially relies on funding from the DOE.
Although I agree with those points, I want to respond to what I see as a troubling sentiment in her piece that I’ve seen also reflected around campus. Shiflett blames individual voters for electoral outcomes, which is concerning because it ignores the relevant stakeholders who genuinely shape the political landscape: political parties and institutions. These political parties and institutions should inform the decisions of voters.
An example Shiflett brings up in her piece is the Gaza anti-genocide protest voting seen in Michigan against Kamala Harris. These Dearborn voters were staunchly anti-genocide and wanted to halt the supply of American weapons killing their families. In response to this request from their base of support, the Biden administration continued their policy of unconditionally supporting Israel’s genocide and mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians. When Kamala Harris entered the race, she did not distinguish herself from Biden’s policies of mass murder and even went so far as to say that she would’ve done nothing differently from Biden.
The Democratic party could’ve easily captured these voters. They could’ve adjusted their policy of supporting Israel’s genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Gaza. They did not. So now, why are we surprised when these voters go against the party? Even if the Democratic party would’ve, in theory, been a better decision, why should we expect voters to engage in counterfactuals? Shouldn’t the responsibility be on the party to respond to their base of support, lest they reap the electoral consequences?
Trump visited Dearborn during the election and said that he would end the wars in Gaza and Lebanon and bring peace to the region. He was, of course, lying, but he reached out to these voters in a way that the Democratic party never did. If support for Israel’s bloodshed was going to continue, the party couldn’t even muster basic rhetorical support for these anti-genocide constituencies. For instance, Democrats rejected having a Palestinian American speak at the Democratic National Convention, which was likely to be a speech favorable to the party. Given these circumstances, it should not be a surprise that Kamala Harris suffered when the Democratic party made the deliberate decision to ignore these voters, push them out of their electoral coalition and continue their support for Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people.
Furthermore, Shiflett mentions Kentucky school teachers and Venezuelan immigrants living in Florida. She does so because she sees them as working against their best interests in voting for Trump. As Shiflett writes in her piece, the Trump administration has already removed the Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelan immigrants and he also plans on dismantling the Department of Education.
I agree with Shiflett that these actions taken and likely to be taken by the Trump administration will hurt these groups. Even if those things can be true, I still blame the Democratic party for hemorrhaging their support when they otherwise could have at least made the effort to reach out to these constituencies. The Democratic party did not at all meaningfully reach out to these voters. Even if they still wouldn’t have likely won these states, improving communication and outreach efforts could’ve at least been worthwhile considering the down-ballot races throughout both states. Trump has campaigned in both states multiple times. When the Democratic party is lackluster in trying to capture these voters, should it be surprising that they are moving away from the party?
After the election, the College’s Young Democrats chapter put out a statement making a point that gets to my main disagreement with Shiflett’s article. They said, “We urge those who feel compelled to attack others over the election results to stop. Blaming and shaming others over who they voted for is simply not productive.” I can’t agree with this sentiment enough. Suppose you still want someone to blame, especially if you’re a student at the College with a similar sentiment to Shiflett. In that case, I propose instead expressing your frustration toward respective political parties and institutions because they are the ones who ultimately inform voters’ decisions. When people vote for their self-interest, they do so based on what institutions and parties offer them. If people want to spark change effectively, I propose starting on the institutional rather than individual level. Ostracizing individual voters the party has already alienated doesn’t seem like a pragmatic or winning strategy.
On the other hand, transforming political institutions that ultimately inform voters’ decisions does seem like a winning strategy. Institutional change has the potential to impact thousands and millions of people rather than simply impacting people on an ineffective personal basis. A quote attributed to the late Michael Brooks perfectly articulates this point. He says, “Be kind to people, be ruthless to systems.”
