By John Q. Hosedrinker 
India Walton, a Democratic socialist, believes that moderating her progressive message cost her the 2021 Buffalo mayoral election, which she lost after winning the primary. She argues that pivoting towards the center alienated her supporters and ultimately led to her defeat, contributing to the current political climate. Walton now warns progressive candidates against compromising their ideals, believing that a strong focus on working-class interests is essential for electoral success. This stance contrasts with some Democratic strategists who believe the party has moved too far left, highlighting a debate within the party regarding the most effective path forward.
Read the original article here
The core issue is this: a Democrat is warning US progressives against a strategic shift towards the center, making the blunt statement, “It lost me the election.” This isn’t a simple case of losing; it’s about betraying the core principles and the very people who initially supported the candidate. It’s a lesson in political strategy, and the consensus here is that abandoning your base is a recipe for disaster.
The narrative highlights a specific example where a candidate, after securing a primary win with the backing of a teachers’ union by initially opposing charter schools, then reversed course. The move was calculated to appeal to business leaders by supporting “school choice,” ultimately losing the union’s support for the general election. This rapid shift, coupled with distancing from the “defund the police” movement, is not seen as a shrewd move toward the center, but rather, a betrayal of the voters who helped her win.
The sentiment conveyed is that this isn’t merely about losing an election; it’s about the erosion of trust. Voters, particularly those on the progressive end of the spectrum, see such moves as a sign of insincerity. They see it as politicians saying whatever it takes to win, not standing firm on their beliefs. The warning is clear: don’t compromise your core values simply to chase votes. The emphasis should be on fighting for what you believe in, not strategically pandering to potentially win votes.
There is a clear frustration with the Democratic establishment’s approach. The argument is that the party is too quick to appease conservatives, seemingly more concerned with maintaining a broad coalition than actually championing progressive values. The view is that a “centrist” approach offers nothing meaningful to those struggling with economic hardship. The call is for Democrats to embrace their platform, to be as “ruthless” as the Republicans, and stand for something concrete.
The implication here is that the obsession with the “center” often leads to the erasure of real progressive policy in an attempt to cater to an audience that is never truly satisfied. The point is, voters want authenticity. If they want right-leaning policies, they’ll vote Republican. If they want left-leaning policies, and the candidate pivots, it creates a credibility gap. Why would voters want a watered-down version of what they believe in? It is far more likely they will simply choose to sit it out altogether.
The discussion also delves into the power dynamics within the Democratic party. There’s a strong sense that established interests, fueled by funding, often steer the direction of candidates and the party as a whole. The point is that the party’s reliance on money and influence frequently overshadows the voices of the voters. The argument is that the very structures that enable these forces are often overlooked, such as gerrymandering and the lack of campaign finance reform.
This warning isn’t just about winning an election. It’s about the larger narrative of identity and values. Progressives are urged to maintain their positions and be clear about their priorities. The underlying point: the so-called “center” is shifting further to the right. What would be considered moderate in other Western nations is, in the US, often perceived as left-leaning, because of the far-right drift that has been happening in this country. The real takeaway is to not be afraid of standing for something.
The comments conclude with a call for the progressive wing of the Democratic party to break from the party. There is a lack of faith in the ability of the Democratic party to govern or to be true to their base. This sentiment suggests that a true commitment to the progressive values of the political system may require a new party. The Democrats need to realize the urgency of the situation and not be as focused on the “center.”