As a former moderate Republican turned independent to escape MAGA (NeverTrumper) I look in at the New Big Tent aspirations of the Democratic party and have just one question. Why are non-party DSA members allowed to run in Democratic primaries in the first place? I have progressive inclinations as well as left/right moderate. I figure 2/3rds of Americans no more associate with "Socialist" as they do with "MAGA". Is that too much to ask of the Democratic party once the midterms are over and the 2028 mud-slinging begins this November?
Coexistence with the left is not the only option the center and center-left have. They can also deliberately reach out to all the independents the left has alienated over the last decade and more (the Obama-Trump contingent was and still is huge), bring them back into the party, and use their numbers to kick the hard left out of the Democratic tent. Maybe America will finally get the small but significant left-wing party it needs, so the Democrats can be the home of liberals and moderates.
A supermajority Democratic Party needs to be a big tent, I understand that. The question is, do the they understand that? Look through progressive media, talk to their volunteers, go to their events, see if you can find any sign of this understanding. I can’t. The left flank is thoroughly convinced that theirs is a message that will win America and that the moderate Dems are an obstacle. The result is an asymmetric competition, the democratic mainstream is focused on beating republicans, the left flank is focused on primaries against other democrats. A competition that can only end in most safe seats falling to the left.
We need to accept that the DSA faction is here to stay, but we cannot be naive about their intentions. Reasonable countermeasures (open primaries, for example) need to be taken before the Dems fall to a DSA version of the Tea Party.
You say it’s a two-way street - but it isn’t really, is it? The Democrats *need* to celebrate and support politicians like Jared Golden and Joe Manchin because they allow them to win in places they couldn’t possibly win with a progressive candidate. And that’s the only way the Dems can ever retake the Senate. By contract they don’t *need* to run progressive candidates in deep-blue areas because moderates could win just as well in the absence of a viable party to the left. I’m not saying the Dems should only field moderate candidates - it’s good to be a broad church. But we shouldn’t pretend that someone like AOC has the same value to the party as Jared Golden.
“We need to build bridges between more progressive candidates and moderate candidates."
No, we don't. I'm not going to be in a party with people who hate America and want to destroy our way of life. Republicans are closer to me than whatever Darializa Avila Chevalier is.
I generally agree, but I am much more worried about progressives imposing purity tests that disqualify moderates from primary wins in moderate districts than I am moderates not working with progressives in government once they are elected. As you say, Bernie and AOC have been able to work with establishment Dems just fine, if there is a wing of the party that is bigger on litmus tests and more prone to not only not support but outright denigrate centrists liberals it's the far left.
Not to mention that there are candidates who are simply beyond the pale and it has to be okay to say so. I am not part of the same coalition as Darializa Avila Chevalier even if she was able to win my party's nomination for a congressional seat. She pretty openly hates America as it actually exists. That's cancer for any political party in additional to being wrong, Dems shouldn't feel like we have to accept people like that in the tent. Her very presence as a symbol for right wing opposition to rally around does more harm than good.
This is exactly right and is downstream of the core realization that the goal is to win election and form a coalition that can in aggregate pass net beneficial legislation. My concern is precisely about whatever percentage of the would-be coalition that might be actively opposed to either of those goals.
I’ve seen no meaningful moderation from any Dems beyond tone and aesthetics (aka vibes) since 2024, at the same time they’re opening the tent to people even further to the left in cities that monopolize the attention of political pundits in ways that negatively impact the party brand everywhere. I’m not going to continue voting for a party that welcomes in racist people who openly hate America and me, just like i wouldn’t expect black americans to vote for a party that defends people who openly hate them because of the color of their skin. This is insane and the first time I’ve truly considered switching parties because Dems continue to rationalize true and unacceptable extremism in the name of a big tent. And I’m sorry but the tent is still closed to those who hold moderate/conservative views on certain controversial 80/20 issues.
This article seems to be taking the view that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is a liability that should be reined-in. Perhaps part of the explanation for that view lies in the things progressives view as important: equality for all, universal health care, the need for fundamental reform, better regulation of industry, wealth redistribution, anti-oligarch, tax equity, skepticism of military force, etc. These positions are not out of step with where America is now, which is why these candidates are getting elected. The more conservative portions of the Democratic Party should perhaps reevaluate their positions. There is a lot of common ground.
Very old school analysis for such a young writer. Good job.
Thanks David!
As a former moderate Republican turned independent to escape MAGA (NeverTrumper) I look in at the New Big Tent aspirations of the Democratic party and have just one question. Why are non-party DSA members allowed to run in Democratic primaries in the first place? I have progressive inclinations as well as left/right moderate. I figure 2/3rds of Americans no more associate with "Socialist" as they do with "MAGA". Is that too much to ask of the Democratic party once the midterms are over and the 2028 mud-slinging begins this November?
Coexistence with the left is not the only option the center and center-left have. They can also deliberately reach out to all the independents the left has alienated over the last decade and more (the Obama-Trump contingent was and still is huge), bring them back into the party, and use their numbers to kick the hard left out of the Democratic tent. Maybe America will finally get the small but significant left-wing party it needs, so the Democrats can be the home of liberals and moderates.
A supermajority Democratic Party needs to be a big tent, I understand that. The question is, do the they understand that? Look through progressive media, talk to their volunteers, go to their events, see if you can find any sign of this understanding. I can’t. The left flank is thoroughly convinced that theirs is a message that will win America and that the moderate Dems are an obstacle. The result is an asymmetric competition, the democratic mainstream is focused on beating republicans, the left flank is focused on primaries against other democrats. A competition that can only end in most safe seats falling to the left.
We need to accept that the DSA faction is here to stay, but we cannot be naive about their intentions. Reasonable countermeasures (open primaries, for example) need to be taken before the Dems fall to a DSA version of the Tea Party.
You say it’s a two-way street - but it isn’t really, is it? The Democrats *need* to celebrate and support politicians like Jared Golden and Joe Manchin because they allow them to win in places they couldn’t possibly win with a progressive candidate. And that’s the only way the Dems can ever retake the Senate. By contract they don’t *need* to run progressive candidates in deep-blue areas because moderates could win just as well in the absence of a viable party to the left. I’m not saying the Dems should only field moderate candidates - it’s good to be a broad church. But we shouldn’t pretend that someone like AOC has the same value to the party as Jared Golden.
precisely.
“We need to build bridges between more progressive candidates and moderate candidates."
No, we don't. I'm not going to be in a party with people who hate America and want to destroy our way of life. Republicans are closer to me than whatever Darializa Avila Chevalier is.
I generally agree, but I am much more worried about progressives imposing purity tests that disqualify moderates from primary wins in moderate districts than I am moderates not working with progressives in government once they are elected. As you say, Bernie and AOC have been able to work with establishment Dems just fine, if there is a wing of the party that is bigger on litmus tests and more prone to not only not support but outright denigrate centrists liberals it's the far left.
Not to mention that there are candidates who are simply beyond the pale and it has to be okay to say so. I am not part of the same coalition as Darializa Avila Chevalier even if she was able to win my party's nomination for a congressional seat. She pretty openly hates America as it actually exists. That's cancer for any political party in additional to being wrong, Dems shouldn't feel like we have to accept people like that in the tent. Her very presence as a symbol for right wing opposition to rally around does more harm than good.
This is exactly right and is downstream of the core realization that the goal is to win election and form a coalition that can in aggregate pass net beneficial legislation. My concern is precisely about whatever percentage of the would-be coalition that might be actively opposed to either of those goals.
I’ve seen no meaningful moderation from any Dems beyond tone and aesthetics (aka vibes) since 2024, at the same time they’re opening the tent to people even further to the left in cities that monopolize the attention of political pundits in ways that negatively impact the party brand everywhere. I’m not going to continue voting for a party that welcomes in racist people who openly hate America and me, just like i wouldn’t expect black americans to vote for a party that defends people who openly hate them because of the color of their skin. This is insane and the first time I’ve truly considered switching parties because Dems continue to rationalize true and unacceptable extremism in the name of a big tent. And I’m sorry but the tent is still closed to those who hold moderate/conservative views on certain controversial 80/20 issues.
This article seems to be taking the view that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is a liability that should be reined-in. Perhaps part of the explanation for that view lies in the things progressives view as important: equality for all, universal health care, the need for fundamental reform, better regulation of industry, wealth redistribution, anti-oligarch, tax equity, skepticism of military force, etc. These positions are not out of step with where America is now, which is why these candidates are getting elected. The more conservative portions of the Democratic Party should perhaps reevaluate their positions. There is a lot of common ground.