If Republicans wanted to set a political trap for Democrats by forcing a vote on a bill condemning socialism, they dropped the ball. Last Tuesday, the Republican-controlled House voted to approve a resolution condemning socialism, with eight Democrats crossing the aisle to back the measure.

Those eight Democratic Representatives — Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), Darren Soto (D-Fla.), Jared Golden (D-Maine), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.), Don Davis (D-N.C.) and Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.) — should be commended.

Although purely symbolic, the vote could have provided an important bipartisan rejection of socialism and socialist policies that are at odds with the U.S.’s longstanding commitment to capitalism, individual liberty and democratic institutions. The vote comes as democratic socialist candidates are winning primaries in heavily Democratic districts and are likely to enter Congress in January.

But while forcing politically charged votes before an election is nothing new, Republicans turned what could have been a meaningful statement into an overtly partisan maneuver. Attached to the resolution — which “condemns and denounces socialism in all its forms, including the Democratic Socialists of America and opposes the implementation of socialist policies in the United States” — was unrelated language calling to enact the SAVE America Act.

That act, which President Trump has repeatedly tried to force through the Senate even though Republican senators say the votes are not there, is widely opposed by Democrats. The inclusion of the SAVE Act language alienated Democrats who may otherwise have supported a clean resolution, squandering an opportunity for a more bipartisan rebuke of socialism.

A group of moderate Democrats — including Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), Hillary Scholten (D-Mich.), Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) — attempted to introduce an amendment condemning socialism without the voting provision, hinting they might have joined the eight Democrats who ultimately supported the resolution.

In fact, proof of the potential for a larger, more bipartisan rebuke of socialism came just days later. On Thursday, the House passed the Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act, sponsored by Gottheimer and Republican Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), with 33 Democrats voting in favor.

The bill would force colleges receiving federal student aid funding not to participate in boycotts of Israel, a clear rejection of the Democratic Socialists of America organization’s anti-Israel and pro-boycott, divest and sanction positions.

Prior to the socialism vote, Gottheimer issued a statement arguing that the inclusion of the SAVE Act showed Republicans were “not actually interested in getting people on record on whether socialists are part of the Democratic Party.”

He’s right. If Republicans genuinely wanted to establish whether Democrats would reject socialism, they should have offered a clean resolution. Instead, they gave Democrats an out. However, Republicans’ partisan maneuver should not allow Democrats to avoid the larger question this episode raised: What does the Democratic Party stand for?

The Democratic Party has largely built its 2026 strategy around opposition to President Trump and the congressional Republicans enabling his unpopular policies. Given Trump’s 40 percent overall approval rating, and an even lower 35 percent approval on the economy, this approach could be sufficient to produce substantial gains this November.

But telling voters they should vote against Trump is not the same as giving them a reason to vote for Democrats. Democrats already have strong positions on healthcare, reproductive rights, defending democratic institutions and expanding economic opportunity. But the party has not built those commitments into a broad, coherent agenda focused on voters’ top concerns: affordability, the economy, immigration, healthcare, and public safety.

This absence is likely a key reason the party’s favorability rating is 14 points underwater even while Trump and Republicans have serious vulnerabilities. It also has created an opening for the Democratic Socialists of America to fill the vacuum. If voters come to think the Democrats’ agenda is that of the socialists, Democrats will struggle to build the coalition needed to govern nationally.

Democrats could still take back the House — and perhaps the Senate — in 2026 due to dissatisfaction with Trump. But when the presidency is up for grabs in 2028, opposition to an unpopular president will not be enough.

If Democrats do not want socialists to define their party, they must define it themselves.

Thir agenda should combine secure borders with an earned pathway to citizenship, fiscal responsibility with targeted investments and practical solutions for the affordability crisis, support for allies like Israel alongside responsible diplomacy, improving public safety and a commitment to capitalism that expands opportunities to lift more Americans up and rewards hard work and innovation.

These positions should not be divisive, and reflect the kind of pragmatic, center-left agenda that can appeal to both the Democratic base and to independent, swing voters who decide elections in battleground states.

Ultimately, even if Republicans missed a chance to score political points or exacerbate Democrats’ ideological battle, this still highlighted a genuine Democratic vulnerability. Moderate and center-left Democrats should use this moment to not just oppose Trump, but to define the party around economic growth, affordability, public safety, secure borders, and effective government.

If Democrats want to win when Trump is no longer the villain, they must offer a forward-looking and inclusive agenda that shows Americans how Democratic leadership would improve their lives.