Democratic strategist James Carville has issued a sharp critique of the Democratic Party’s internal divisions, warning the party is on a path toward a ‘civilized civil war’ due to its lack of unity. In a recent guest essay published in The New York Times, Carville described the Democratic Party as ‘constipated, leaderless, confused, a cracked-out clown car, and divided’—a reflection of the growing fractures within the party. He pointed to the recent victory of New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani as a clear sign of these divisions. Mamdani’s progressive policies, including government-run grocery stores and a plan to tax the top 1% of New Yorkers, have sparked controversy within the party.
Carville highlighted the ideological split within the party, stating that factions with different views on issues like the Israel-Palestine conflict are at odds. He also noted generational divides, with younger candidates like Mamdani pushing for immediate economic reforms that older Democrats are skeptical about. The strategist called for a ‘repeal’ of President Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill,’ which included cuts to Medicaid, increased military spending, and work requirements for Medicaid recipients. Carville argued that the party needs a unified opposition to Trump’s policies to avoid internal conflict ahead of the midterms. He urged Democrats to come together around a common message, emphasizing the need to avoid a growing civil war within the party.
Carville’s criticism also extended to the party’s leadership, describing it as ineffective and unable to address the growing rifts. The strategist called on members to reject the ‘endless wars’ and the military funding increases included in Trump’s legislation. He also criticized the cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the impact on student loan protections. Carville stressed that without a unified front, the Democratic Party risks further internal strife, which could have significant implications for its performance in the upcoming midterm elections. The essay reflects a broader concern among critics about the party’s ability to maintain cohesion and effectively counter the Republican agenda.