Soft on crime, tough on fossil fuels, and spending taxpayers’ dollars on outlandish schemes may be the death of the radical left’s once-promised takeover of the Democratic Party. In short, progressives are performing at remedial level, at best. Ah, the early days showed so much potential with the elections of, and media attention for, those outspoken, fresh-faced, young, and not living in the real-world folks. In more polite parlance? The Democratic Party’s progressive wing is still struggling to gain serious power.
Money vs Ideology
To be fair, progressive candidates have been outspent in nearly every primary race. Nevertheless, the Democratic Party stalwarts still hope to engage both parties’ centrists to win the general election. And those moderate Democrats were victorious in Ohio and North Carolina. Matt Bennett, of top centrist think-tank Third Way, cautions the radically driven progressive candidates to temper their incendiary rhetoric:
“The far left was talking about a big game at the start of this cycle, but reality has intruded. Democratic voters keep saying over and over that they do not want what the far left is selling. Deep-blue San Francisco has sent that message twice this year in recall elections. Voters in Minneapolis said the same, as did Democrats in New York City.”
Bennett is referring to the ouster of now-former San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin, who was drubbed clean off his soapbox in the most liberal of American cities. As progressives go, Boudin was undoubtedly the poster child of radicalism: his parents were incarcerated in prison for the 1981 attempt at a Brinks heist with other members of the violent Weather Underground. Cash bail and extreme police reform do not sit well with the law-abiding folks in a crime-ridden neighborhood.
Frightening messaging aside, where is all that money coming from? Democratic super PACS, of course. In one North Carolina Congressional District, a cool $3.5 million flooded the area for Valerie Foushee over progressive pick Nida Allam. Allam had only $370,000 on her behalf from political action committees. In another district in the state, progressive candidate Erica Smith was the reason United Democracy Project — funded by American Israel Public Affairs Committee — spent $2.4 million boosting Don Davis for the win. Anti-Israel pomposity didn’t sit well with middle east peace-loving North Carolinians.
Leah Greenberg, the co-founder of the radical left group Indivisible, shrugs off the notion that outside funding is unprecedented in the 2022 primary season. And that the fundamental strategy lies in finding the weakest opponents in the most critical of districts. But she also realizes the target has gotten much more prominent since the 2018 midterm elections: “Progressives are used to getting outspent. They’re used to winning without having the resources to match dollar for dollar. But there’s a big difference between being outspent 2 to 1 and being outspent 10 to 1.”
Moderate Dems to Prevail?
For whatever reasons, endorsements by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer appear to hold more sway than those of Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). Perhaps Americans seem to be slightly interested in a more liberal agenda but stop abruptly at the progressive scheme of eradicating fossil fuel, reducing the red meat industry to prevent cow flatulence, opening borders, and defunding the police.
For the 2022 midterms, it doesn’t appear progressive radicals will unseat the elder statesmen and women in the Democratic Party. But the primary season is in full swing with the last election dates before the general election held on September 13 – and a lot of political, diplomatic, and quality of life issues will continue to unfold. Is the radical wing on the run or will they eventually simply outlive their competitors, rise to ultimate control, and alter the face of the national party for good?
