I’ve been observing the unfolding conversation about big DSA wins in New York City on Tuesday and specifically the clout Mayor Zohran Mamdani has gained because he went three for three in congressional endorsements. It’s a complex picture and I’m generally more sanguine about what’s happening than others. As I wrote, I think Chevalier doesn’t have any business in Congress. Lander and Valdez are simply the left wing of the Democratic party and on that front even Lander and Valdez are very different candidates. I may do a separate post on Chevalier’s extremism on Israel-Palestine and, yes, Jews, as well as other issues. Important topic but not the topic of this post.
I’ve made the point a few times that our political language and mental geography assumes that there are two political spectra in the Democratic party, one that is right/centrist to left and another that is accommodation to fight. It’s often assumed that these pretty neatly line up — progs and left-wingers are up for a fight but the more center-left or liberal folks are more cautious, institutionalist or even accommodationist. And yet there’s no real connection between these two things.
So far, so good. You’ve heard me make this general point many times. But it is really on the center-left, or liberals, to make clear that this isn’t the case. And to a great degree they are not — not convincingly — though there’s been progress on this front over the last eighteen months. And in a political climate in which people are both really angry and really scared and think major change is necessary, the old rhetoric, the old posture just isn’t going to cut it. It doesn’t speak to anyone. It seems jarringly out of touch with the moment.
For some people, you want to find ways to keep the DSA left out of Congress. So maybe you get liberals and center-left candidates to develop a better theory of power and they get elected and no progressives do. I don’t believe that. That’s silly. You’ve got a range of ideologies that make up the Democratic Party or the leftward half of American politics. Each community or jurisdiction should elect representatives who match their politics, their policy choices, etc. What flies in the Outer Boroughs in New York City won’t fly in most of Pennsylvania for instance or most of New York state for that matter. My concern, to the extent I have one, is that you’ll get more leftwing candidates winning primaries in parts of the country where their politics and ideology can get by in a Democratic primary but it doesn’t match the electorate overall. I’m clearly not alone in this concern. That’s what we hear in those blind quotes in Politico from “centrist” Democratic representatives.
I tend to think these fears are exaggerated. It is a real issue. But to the extent it is, non-prog/DSA Dems need to embrace a fighting posture and aesthetic. They need to speak the language of constitutional hardball and be ready to implement it in office. Otherwise, of course, you’re going to be vulnerable to left-wing primary candidates because their language makes clear these aren’t ordinary times and we need to fight back against extremism and fascism and win, hold people accountable etc. Anything short of that is going to seem meaningless, weak and out of touch to anyone who is really paying attention to what is happening in the country today.
Put more crisply, if you’re so worried about left-wing candidates getting nominations, stop sounding like a wuss in the midst of a grave national crisis.
This isn’t just good intra-party politics, it’s essential on the substance. It’s critical to win the 2026 midterms. But it’s critical you win majorities with leadership and back benches who understand political power and are ready to wield it to maximum extent possible under the law and Constitution. Not norms and traditions. Everything that isn’t illegal. Full stop.
A couple additional points. Some of what I have described as a misalignment in Democratic politics or a failure of labels and definitions is embedded in the names of the factions themselves. To the extent people talk about the Democratic Party as “centrists” vs progressives, well … centrist doesn’t actually mean anything. It is a purely contextual label and speaks to an effort to find some point of middle ground between other things as opposed to any actual set of values or beliefs or political aims. A lot of the problem is contained within that simple fact. I think what non-progressive Democratic politicians actually are is “liberals.” Perhaps that label is just too beat up in American political speech, first from the right and now, even more, from the left. I’ll let others decide the degree to which that is the case. But liberalism is actually a powerful, liberationist ideology. But it’s up to its advocates to understand it a little more fully and embody it in ways that doesn’t make it an object of ridicule. Abroad, it’s usually obvious that the people who are for greater freedom and open civic space are the “liberals.” Less so at home apparently.
Next, earlier this week, TPM Reader BD wrote this in her reader email, addressing me … “I’m going to invoke your conditional Platner defense on her behalf: She is young, smart, impassioned, and green, green, green. But let’s see how she grows in office.”
First, I wouldn’t call it a defense, more a reality. But you can’t invoke it against me because I’ve already invoked it against myself. It’s notional and entirely symbolic. But if I were living in New York 13 I would vote for her in the general, even though, as I wrote, I don’t think she has any business in Congress. Why? For the same reasons as Platner, though I don’t see them as in any way comparable. Because the whole future of the country rests on Democrats retaking control of Congress. And if I’m going to tell people that has to be our guiding star, not whether a particular candidate might seem wanting or even unacceptable to us for various reasons, then I need to follow that principle as well. Even though her history of comments tells me she’s part of the ideas and attitudes that is at least antipathetic to Jewish life in the United States and hostile to the country and certainly the Democratic Party. Unless she grows in office super fast I’d probably support a primary against her in the next election. But in 2026 I’d vote for her.