Their positions keep shifting depending on where Trump is.

L ast month, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer spoke about how hard tariffs had been on her state.

“I’m not against tariffs outright, but it is a blunt tool,” she said. “You can’t just pull out the tariff hammer to swing at every problem without a clear, defined end goal.”

So while the Dow Jones fell faster than Shedeur Sanders’s draft stock, the prominent Democrat’s response was . . . that true tariffism had never been tried? That Trump was simply jacking up taxes on Americans in a clumsier way than she would?

Best of luck with that in 2028.

Trade protectionism has, of course, been a foundational issue for Democrats for decades. Hiking tariffs on foreign products is a sop to the unions and farmers who support their candidates. That’s why nobody on the left raised a ruckus when President Joe Biden not only accepted Trump’s first-term tariff increases but expanded them.

When Bill Clinton negotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), it passed with most Democrats in the House and Senate voting against it. In contrast, three out of every four House Republicans voted for it.

So nobody actually believes Democrats have suddenly found religion on tariffs. But protectionism is only one example of how the left has been tangled like headphone wires while trying to disavow and then oppose positions that Donald Trump stole from them.

An untold number of pixels have been spilled explaining how Republicans have completely changed their position on major issues because Trump has ordered them to. The busiest job in Washington, D.C., these days might be “right-wing think tank tech nerd deleting old anti-tariff articles.” Meanwhile, Utah Senator Mike Lee, who spent the better part of a decade introducing legislation to take back tariff authority from the president, appears to have suffered a bout of MAGA-induced amnesia as soon as Trump began raising import taxes on his own.

But just as interesting are the Democrats who have suddenly warmed to traditionally conservative issues as Trump has encroached on their turf. When a large, boisterous man moves into your house, it is amazing how refreshing it is to get outside.

Take, for example, the progressive 180-degree turn on the U.S. Supreme Court. Democrats have spent years bemoaning the influence of conservative judges on the bench and decrying the impact of Trump-appointed judges on progressive causes. Fast-forward to Trump 2.0, when the narrative has shifted dramatically. Now, liberals champion the Court’s role in curbing what they perceive as Trump’s overreach, transforming conservative justices into unexpected allies. (Who could have ever seen that coming?)

Just this week, Ian Millhiser, a laughably histrionic lefty legal writer at Vox, described Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch as “the hero America deserves.” Noting Gorsuch’s preference for a weak executive, Millhiser writes that the justice could “save America from a chaotic leader who doesn’t seem to hold the law in high regard.”

Of course, Millhiser was of a different mind during Gorsuch’s nomination process, demeaning him as an “illegitimate” choice for the court. While his newfound appreciation for the jurist is welcome, it makes one worry that something sitting too long in the staff refrigerator at Vox has induced hallucinations in its writers. (Side note: Supreme Court nomination fights are now like The Purge for American intellectuals, who think they get two weeks to say whatever insane things they want without any lasting repercussions.)

Further, long championed by conservatives as a bulwark against federal overreach, federalism now finds favor among liberals as a means to circumvent Trump’s agenda. Democratic governors and state courts have become bastions of resistance, wielding state-level power to counter federal mandates, showcasing a tactical shift that would have baffled previous generations of Democrats interested in consolidating power in the federal government. (State Democrats have, for example, railed against Trump’s executive orders telling them how to run elections, how to enforce immigration law, and how to revamp curricula in local schools.)

Democrats have even undergone something of an awakening regarding the sanctity of the Constitution, long viewed by liberals as a “living” document adaptable to modern interpretations. Suddenly, strict constructionism — a conservative doctrine emphasizing literal interpretations of constitutional texts — has found surprising allies among Democrats when confronting issues like birthright citizenship and executive authority over tariffs.

Ukraine presents perhaps the most dramatic flip-flop. Historically home to antiwar sentiments, the Democratic Party in recent years has undergone a remarkable shift. Democrats almost unanimously now advocate robust U.S. military aid for Ukraine in its war against Russian invaders. The party’s traditionally dovish factions seem to have vanished, at least in that one foreign policy realm, replaced by a resolute stance against Vladimir Putin’s authoritarianism and aggression. The Democratic position now eerily mirrors the Cold War ethos once championed by Republicans, most notably Ronald Reagan.

These reversals are not merely rhetorical gymnastics; they represent a deeper recalibration of Democratic strategy in response to Trumpism. Where once stood ideological consistency now stands pragmatic adaptation to an unprecedented political adversary.

It’s nice that some Democrats have seen the light and are willing to flirt with the TradCons. But like the Republican capitulation to Trump, it is just a further demonstration to voters that politicians don’t have convictions, they have expedient talking points. Both parties are going through an identity makeover that even Dylan Mulvaney would find a bit much.