No. of Recommendations: 3
Politico has an interesting column on Democrats' changing approach to what has been one of their signature issues for the last two decades: climate change.
Climate policy is decidedly unfashionable in 2025 — among Democrats.
The party isn’t embracing climate change denialism like many in the GOP, nor is it endorsing the Trump administration’s attacks on clean energy. But as Democrats continue groping for a way forward after their 2024 defeat, they’ve clearly decided they need to change how they talk about climate and energy issues. And in some cases, it goes beyond rhetoric to the actual policies they’re promoting. The bottom line for Democrats: Climate is out, affordability is in.
With Donald Trump having won back the presidency amid broad frustration with high prices, it’s perhaps no surprise that Democrats are trying to make gains in the affordability debate. But it’s still striking to see longtime climate champions in the party shift gears, and it speaks to concern among Democrats that their focus on climate change has weighed them down.https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/10/16/...I think this is long overdue. I think even more than any cultural issue, the Democrats' choice to center climate change as such an important priority has cost them dearly with the electorate. I think it is the main reason why they're having so much trouble with their efforts to pivot back to the working class - a big swatch of the electorate just doesn't trust Democrats on the economy, and I think climate change is the main reason. This quote exemplifies how and why:
“Sometimes our messaging in the Democratic Party — not great,” Sherrill said in a March interview. “For years we’ve said, ‘We need to move into clean power.’ And there’s almost been this understanding, ‘It’s going to cost you an arm and a leg, but if you’re a good person, you’ll do it.’ So now that we’re actually in that place that we promised — it was going to be cheaper than any other source of power — people are skeptical.”I think Sherrill precisely diagnosed the problem (though not the solution). Because Democrats kept talking so much about fighting climate change as being necessary to save the world, I think Democrats are perceived as elevating climate change above all other priorities. I think voters perceived that if there was ever a conflict between climate change policy and their own near-term (or even long-term) economic needs of voters, Democrats would prioritize fighting climate change. That's certainly not where voters are - and if that's not where Democrats
actually were, they sure acted like it. On its way from the Build Back Better plan to the Inflation Reduction Act, the Democrats were forced to actually set their priorities - which items on their wish list of things that they (and their voters!) wanted them to do would make the cut, and which ones wouldn't. At the end of the day, of about $891 billion in topline spending, around $783 billion went to energy and climate programs.
On the biggest
economic measure that came out of the Biden years, climate was the number one priority, and the others weren't even close. That's probably not what working class voters would have chosen. It's very much what college-educated progressives would have chosen, though.
Which is why I think Sherrill's comment hits the problem but not the solution. I think Democrats need to pivot away from climate if they have any hope of winning pocketbook issues with big chunks of the working class voters again....but I don't think voters are going to be persuaded if the Democrats just change their rhetoric from "green energy is needed to save the world" to "green energy will lower your bills." They need a message that says, "we care about your economic position more than we care about climate change." Because that's where voters are (and have always been), and Democrats have spent almost two decades acting as though that wasn't the case.
