By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The author argues that the prevailing strategy of moderate Democrats is not the solution to the party’s struggles, but rather a continuation of the policies that have led to their failures. They point to the decline of states that once supported Democrats due to economic abandonment and corporate-friendly policies, specifically mentioning NAFTA’s impact on manufacturing jobs. The author contends that the focus should be on economic populism and building public capacity instead of relying on market forces and moderate candidates, as it has proven unsuccessful. They then assert that organized power and coordinated economic populism are the paths forward, not more of the failed moderation suggested by the current chorus.
Read the original article here
The Corporate ‘Moderates’ Had Their Chance—They Blew It
The narrative has become painfully clear: the self-proclaimed “moderate” wing of the Democratic Party, the ones who promised pragmatism and progress, have consistently failed. They’ve had their chance, and the evidence suggests they’ve blown it. It’s a sentiment echoing across the political spectrum, a sense of betrayal that’s fuelled frustration and, frankly, a lot of anger. They prioritized staying in power and accumulating wealth, while pretending to care. The very act of catering to the powerful interests, ignoring the voices of ordinary citizens, shows where their true loyalties lie.
One of the most glaring criticisms of these moderates is their willingness to compromise on core values. They seem to have mastered the art of “controlled opposition,” of appearing to challenge the status quo while subtly enabling the very forces that undermine progress. Their track record is littered with instances where they’ve watered down crucial policies, embraced corporate interests, and supported military endeavors. The common thread is always the same: a focus on maintaining the system, no matter the human cost.
The label “moderate” itself has become a deceptive shield. It’s not a reflection of a balanced approach or a genuine desire to find common ground. Rather, it’s a carefully crafted marketing strategy, designed to appeal to a specific segment of the electorate. They have consultant’s who come up with infinite angles to wrap a corporate-friendly agenda in palatable terms, and force consensus via the media. They’ve perfected the art of presenting a corporate-friendly agenda in appealing terms, they try to force consensus through the media. These candidates are often positioned as the “safe” choice, the “rational” alternative, even as the status quo slides further into a state of decline.
The truth is, many of these “moderates” are simply Republicans in disguise. They offer businesses handouts, and at times, seem to exist solely to collect donor interests. Their rhetoric may differ slightly, but their actions often align with the very policies that exacerbate economic inequality, environmental destruction, and social injustice. They lack a clear platform, a coherent set of values, and a genuine commitment to the needs of the people they claim to represent.
The solution is not more of the same. The Democratic Party needs a complete overhaul. To remove establishment Democrats who have been on the take since *Citizens United* is the goal. Activists need to organize and demand accountability, pushing for real change from the ground up. The fight won’t be easy, but it is necessary if we want to avert the continued descent into legislative gridlock and populist authoritarianism.
One of the issues the “moderates” ignore is the catastrophic consequences of policies like NAFTA, which decimated manufacturing jobs and made America dependent on geopolitical rivals. NAFTA encouraged deindustrialization. Why pay people more in the USA when it can be made cheaper in Mexico or China? It’s a clear example of how these politicians prioritize corporate profits over the well-being of the American people.
The solution requires a shift towards progressive policies. Tax the ultra-rich, break up the monopolies, and use the money to support affordable infrastructure, social programs, and cost-of-living assistance. Support the people during cost of living. This isn’t the only sane way forward, it’s also the only way to promote competition and strengthen the market.
It’s about challenging the existing power structures. They are constantly at odds with one another, and why the former have – and always will – side with conservatives over progressives: institutions of hierarchy will always stand by other institutions of hierarchy, lest one of them collapse and show the world – specifically, those on the lower echelons – that other hierarchies can be challenged and collapsed as well.
The notion that centrists or moderates are the only ones capable of winning elections is a dangerous fallacy. Many of these candidates are more left leaning than the Republican options on the ballot. If a fascist is running, everybody who doesn’t vote against that fascist is unequivocally supporting fascism. This isn’t an opinion, it’s how voting and government works. The idea that “low-information” voters are to blame for electoral failures is both condescending and inaccurate. The issue is with the candidate. The right candidate for the district with the charisma to win.
The bottom line is simple: the “moderate” Democrats have had their chance, and they’ve failed. They’ve failed to address the urgent issues facing the country, they’ve failed to inspire hope, and they’ve failed to deliver on their promises. It’s time for a new generation of leaders to step forward, leaders who are not afraid to challenge the status quo, and to fight for a more just and equitable future.