In one of President Trump’s most effective ads of the campaign, a narrator talks up Vice President Kamala Harris’ support for transgender surgery for prisoners, while showing photos of Trump speaking to factory workers with hardhats, proclaiming: “Kamala’s for they/them. President Trump is for you.”

Part of the ad’s success lay in the fact that so many working people believed the Democrats were indeed for someone else, whoever that someone may be. It is easy to dismiss this as unfair; the Democrats, after all, do far more for working people than the Republicans do. But while the flames of soaring inequality, the hollowing out of the manufacturing base (and with it unions and decent manual labor jobs) and, most recently, inflation, consume the world around them, the Dems live on a tranquil island. It’s an island of important but modest and gradual improvements. The Republicans promise to blow it all up and build a working man’s paradise amidst the ashes.

In the past several days, theories have abounded on the Dems’ stunning defeat at the polls. They range from an excess of “wokeism” to ignoring the country’s rightward shift on immigration or the pain of inflation, to misogyny and racism, to Biden’s narcissism. The traditionalists recite the stale mantra of how moving to the center is a prerequisite to winning elections, as if MAGA encapsulates the virtues of technocratic pragmatism. And a faction of the party, led by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, has blamed the Democrats for being desperately out of touch with the needs of the working class. As he put it: “It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them.”

Whatever the diagnosis, there will likely be more than one cure available. In reflecting on the way forward, I draw on my own experience, leading a national union of low-paid workers in the United Kingdom. We recruited thousands of workers to the union, growing membership by over 1,000% between 2013 and 2020.

The union represented Latin American immigrant janitors, predominantly white, British foster carers and tradespeople, West African security guards and Brazilian bike messengers, among others. Our members held a diversity of political and social views, from longtime socialists, to Brexit-voting rural English conservatives, to Brazilians who had voted for the hard-right Jair Bolsonaro for president, to young Londoners who would be derided as “woke” in today’s political discourse.

The union was not the only political force on the ascent during this period. So too was the British Conservative Party, which went from holding a minority of seats in Parliament to gaining a massive majority. And of course – fueled by some of the same forces that power the MAGA movement – the country voted for Brexit.

Like many trade unions in the U.S. today, our elected leadership and prominent activists tended further left on some issues than many sections of the membership. In a climate of rising xenophobia and immigrant scapegoating, we took decidedly pro-immigrant positions. On the prickly matter of Brexit, we declared ourselves unashamedly opposed. And in the midst of trans-bashing, we proudly defended trans workers’ rights.

Why, one might ask, would some low-paid workers voluntarily pay into a membership organization that did not reflect their views on some of the most prominent political issues of the day? Because on the issues that reigned supreme, the union delivered. Through bold and assertive action, whether on the streets or in the courts, the low-paid workers, through the union, redefined what was possible. Big pay raises, more holidays, better sick pay and, on occasion, abolishing outsourcing in a workplace, were some of the improvements. Ending a manager’s abusive behavior and winning the right to be treated with dignity were others.

In short, these workers saw the union as a reliable vehicle for the dramatic improvement of their condition. Not only did other issues fade in comparison to this, but on occasions where union leadership had to explain a controversial position, skeptical members were more willing to listen to those who spoke with the credibility of having proven whose side they were on.

It is clear that millions of low-paid voters no longer feel this way about the Democratic Party. The path to winning them back for which I would advocate is to ditch the safe but soporific murmurings of gradualism, the vacuous platitudes about fairness and opportunity and the performative outrage at the monied elite that funds their campaigns.

Instead, they should offer a bold vision for a fundamental reshaping of society in the interest of working people. From health care and child care to taxes and housing, the platform should shock and awe, the candidates should truly believe in it, and the party should leave no doubt about who it is fighting for. If the Dems can achieve this, whatever other hesitations voters have about them will matter much less.