Eric Zuniga, Campus Carrier managing editor

It’s often said that history has a tendency of repeating itself. Eight years ago this week, Donald Trump was inaugurated as president for the first time, following an election victory many saw as unthinkable because of his embrace of right-wing extremism and flouting of political norms. On Monday, we saw the same man return to the same office after an election result that was also supposed to be impossible. 

The reverberations of history, however, are rarely perfect echoes. In 2017, the fear and uncertainty represented by Trump’s ascent to power was countered by one of the largest mass protests in America’s history: the day after the inauguration, almost five million participated in the Women’s March held across the country. The corporate world, while not casting Trump as a sworn enemy, did not shower him with donations and public endorsements either. 

Now the mood is more somber. Though the People’s March was held this Saturday, the New York Times estimated only thousands participating in Washington and an even more paltry hundreds marching in other cities. Opportunistic CEOs at big tech companies, like Tim Cook and Mark Zuckerberg, have donated millions to Trump’s inauguration fund in barely concealed attempts to curry favor with his administration. And even some elected Democrats seem to be eager to sign on to parts of Trump’s agenda they would have decried as too radical a few years ago.

Nowhere is this resignation more apparent than in Congress’s recent vote on the Laken Riley Act, supported by 48 House Democrats in addition to all Republicans. The bill mandates immigration detention for non-citizens who are only charged with — not judged guilty of — nonviolent crimes like shoplifting and theft. It also gives any state attorney general the ability to appeal a court’s decision to release an immigrant from detention.

Some have said it’s necessary for those opposed to Trump to drop left-wing positions on immigration, transgender rights, and economic and climate policy in order to move closer to the opinions of a conservative public. While it’s true that some parts of Trump’s agenda are relatively popular — a recent New York Times poll showed that 55% of Americans say they’re in favor of deporting all immigrants “here illegally” — chasing after what’s popular doesn’t equate to ethical or good politics. 

The truth is that what’s just and right is not always popular. Though Martin Luther King is honored with a federal holiday today, 63% viewed him unfavorably in a 1966 Gallup poll. A 1963 Gallup poll showed that 60% of Americans thought that mass demonstrations hurt Black Americans’ pursuit of racial equality. If Democrats are going to be serious about opposing Trump and the causes of justice and equality they purport to uphold, they must take leadership and support what they genuinely believe to be right, not succumb to the consumer mindset that posits whatever sells as what’s best. 

We must also consider that the views of the public are not set in stone — in fact, politicians can often mold public opinion to their benefit. Americans have moved rightward on immigration just as Democrats have tacked to right on the issue. While previous Democrats offered hope of a pathway to citizenship, Kamala Harris merely talked about passing congressional Republicans’ tough border security bill. She also abandoned previous progressive positions on fracking and transgender healthcare. Voters were rightly turned off by the phoniness of this approach. I still believe they may have been swayed by a candidate with the backbone to actually believe in something and justify it. 

Democrats have gotten by on being the lesser of two evils for too long. Their approach has been shown as not only ethically bankrupt but also practically unsuccessful: amid widespread distrust of the establishment, voters crave authenticity. Progressively-minded people should hold them to account and let them off the hook no longer when they fall short of the high ideals they espouse in their rhetoric.