An Open Letter to the Democratic Coalition 

Criticizing the left to save the left

For my entire adult life, I cast ballots, made phone calls, and wrote checks exclusively for Democratic candidates. My attraction to the party was not based on utopian fantasies of some perfectly egalitarian paradise, but on basic human empathy and practical logic: the conviction that an open, pluralistic society must protect the vulnerable, safeguard civil rights, and provide a fair shot to everyone—and that we would all be better off for it.

The night Donald Trump won in 2016, I wept. I was getting married a month later and planning to start the family I had long dreamt of; the result felt like the sudden collapse of a stable country around me, of a normal future for me and my children. Yet in that grief, I woke up the next morning with hope and determination: that the shock would serve as an overdue wake-up call for the Democratic Party to recognize the struggles of working-class Americans who felt left behind.

While that hope lingered for some time, buoyed by Joe Biden’s victory in 2020 (whom I also voted for), the opposite happened. Over the ensuing decade, the moral center of the coalition eroded from within—first quietly and slowly and then bursting into the mainstream after October 7, 2023.

Whenever I criticize this drift or the undeniable leftward lurch of recent years, well-meaning friends urge silence: “Why attack our own side when the alternative is so dangerous?” My answer is simple: I criticize the left to save the left. Partisan tribalism demands unconditional defense of your camp; classical liberalism demands self-policing based on universal principles.

Classical liberalism’s deliberate absence of heavy-handed moralism has always been viewed by critics as its greatest vulnerability. We defended that openness on the premise that moral virtue belonged in the private sphere for civil society to uphold. But that system works only if civil society and political leaders actively reinforce virtue and decisively reprimand violations when moral taboos are broken.

In an era where algorithmic feeds and closed primaries create intense structural incentives to champion illiberal ideas on both sides of the aisle, the Democratic Party cannot afford to surrender the moral high ground. Autocratic populism on the right does not excuse moral rot on the left; it makes moral clarity on the left an urgent necessity. By enforcing non-negotiable moral taboos against overt, hateful bigotry and the endorsement of political violence, we can win back the exhausted moderate majority that fears the extremists being welcomed into our ranks.

I. Big Tents Require Moral Guardrails: The Lesson of the DSA

A healthy political party must be a broad coalition. A big tent accommodates wide-ranging disagreements over tax rates, healthcare models, trade, and industrial policy. But a tent without guardrails is a structure without a foundation.

Pluralism is not boundless appeasement. It requires strict adherence to liberal democratic baselines: universal human dignity, equal protection under the law, the rejection of tribal discrimination, and an absolute taboo against celebrating violence or terror.

The trajectory of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) illustrates what happens when those baselines are abandoned:

• The Original Premise: In the tradition of founder Michael Harrington, the early DSA operated as a reformist, pro-labor faction. Even when its economic proposals were out of touch with market realities, its participation in Democratic primaries operated within the broad norms of civic liberalism.
• The Illiberal Takeover: Over recent years, the organization was captured by ideological absolutists who replaced labor advocacy with rigid oppressor-versus-oppressed dogmas, championed anti-pluralist hostility, and rationalized atrocities against civilians.
• The Internal Exodus: Longtime democratic socialists and founding figures like Maurice Isserman publicly resigned in protest, explicitly calling the organization’s post-October 7 posture “politically and morally bankrupt.” When an organization’s own founders walk away because it celebrates terror and exiles internal dissent, mainstream political parties cannot pretend that faction remains a benign partner.

Welcoming illiberal factions into a governing coalition without demanding adherence to basic, liberal democratic and moral principles does not expand the tent; it hollows it out.

II. Precedents of Moral Boundary Enforcement

American political history proves that enduring coalitions survive not by indulging their fringes, but by actively exiling them:

• William F. Buckley + the John Birch Society: In the 1960s, Buckley recognized that the Birch Society’s conspiratorial extremism threatened the intellectual and moral credibility of conservatism. He used National Review to systematically purge them from mainstream conservative ranks.
• Bill Clinton + Sister Souljah: In 1992, Bill Clinton addressed the Rainbow Coalition and directly rebuked rhetoric that justified retaliatory racial violence, demonstrating that a modern governing party must never excuse bigotry for partisan convenience.
• The Bipartisan Quarantine of David Duke: When former Klansman David Duke sought mainstream legitimacy through electoral politics, leaders across both parties explicitly denounced him, refusing to let partisan opportunism normalize white supremacy.

Healthy parties draw lines. They quarantine extremist rhetoric rather than sanitizing it to protect a factional flank.

III. To Democratic Leadership: Senator Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries + DNC Chair Ken Martin:

Moral leadership requires more than legislative whip counts or party management. As the leaders of both our congressional caucuses and the national party apparatus, your mandate is to enforce the party’s moral perimeter.

• Condemn Ideological Extremism Directly: Disagreeing behind closed doors is insufficient. When candidates or elected officials under your banner traffic in anti-Semitism, dehumanize supporters of Israel, excuse calls for violence, or fail to condemn allies who do, you must publicly denounce them by name.
• Withhold Institutional Resources: The Democratic National Committee and congressional campaign committees must not be passive conduits for extremist normalization. A candidate who embraces bigotry or maintains uncritical alliances with illiberal factions must not receive party resources, coordinated funding, committee assignments, or institutional endorsements.
• End the Fear of Primaries: The calculation that pandering to vocal activist factions prevents primary challenges is shortsighted and demonstrably false. Leaders of moral clarity like Ritchie Torres and John Fetterman have proven that standing firm against extremism and rejecting fringe dogma builds durable, winning coalitions. When leaders display spine, they may alienate a vocal fringe, but they earn the trust of the broad moderate majority that decides national and swing-district elections.

IV. To Democratic Elected Officials + Candidates:

Public office is a public trust. What you tolerate around you defines what you endorse.

• Audit Your Associations and Confront Your Colleagues: Accountability applies not only to what you say, but to whom you stand with. Refuse to share stages with or accept endorsements from figures who promote bigotry. Furthermore, hold your colleagues to the same standard: confront their toxic associations privately first, but if they refuse to correct course, call them out publicly.
• Reject Semantic Word Games: Stop offering rhetorical cover for slogans like “globalize the intifada” or dog-whistles that rationalize harassment under the guise of activism. When words incite hostility against a community, call it what it is—hateful bigotry—without caveat.
• Govern for the Whole Civic Body: Focus your mandates on public safety, civil liberties, and the material well-being of all constituents, rather than weaponizing civic platforms to fuel geopolitical hatreds that make your own streets unsafe.

V. To the Electorate: The Ultimate Enforcers

Elected officials respond to incentives. As long as voters provide automatic, unconditional party loyalty, leadership has no reason to police its ranks.

• Define Your Red Lines: It is entirely reasonable to reject the modern Republican Party. But declaring that you will vote for any Democratic nominee regardless of character or conduct surrenders all democratic leverage and accountability.
• Make Support Conditional: Tell your representatives that your vote is earned, not owned. Demand that candidates articulate their commitment to equal protection, civil discourse, and the explicit rejection of illiberal extremism before you knock on a door, donate a dollar, or cast a ballot.
• Vote on Standards, Not Slogans: When you cast your ballot, don’t just look at what candidates say—look at what they appear to tolerate. Ask yourself: Who is more likely to stand up to the radicals in their party trying to pull them further into extremism? Get rid of the default selection of D or R.

A political party that cannot define what it stands against will soon stand for nothing at all. It is time to restore the moral guardrails of the Democratic Party—not by abandoning our empathy, but by demonstrating the courage to defend it.