Growing Pains

Consider the following statements:

Statement #1: “The real fight in this country is not left versus right, it’s top versus bottom.”

Statement #2: “It’s not left versus right. It’s the people who are locked out versus the people doing the locking out.”

These statements sound pretty similar.

Both connect the problems of ordinary people to large corporations and uber-wealthy individuals who exercise undue influence over the economy and the political system.

Both suggest the damage being done to us hurts conservatives and liberals alike.

Both reject the left-versus-right cultural and ideological disputes that defined political debate for decades and animate politicos inside the Beltway.

What’s noteworthy about these statements is who said them.

The first quote is from Texas Senate nominee James Talarico.

The second is from Michigan Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed.

Talarico is an economic populist.

El-Sayed is widely described as a left-wing insurgent affiliated with Bernie Sanders and AOC.

Talarico is viewed by Washington Democrats as the party’s best hope in ages to win a statewide election in Texas.

El-Sayed is viewed by those same Democrats as a leftist threat who is sending “tremors through the Democratic party.”

So how can two candidates who are so aligned in their respective understanding of the political moment generate such different responses from establishment Democrats?

The answer rests not so much with where these candidates converge but with the company they keep and an entrenched belief that it is risky for Democrats to appear openly progressive after four decades of “liberal” being a political epithet.

And for some party supporters who stand to pay the bills for progressive reforms, it stems from the fear that a populist tide could capture the party and Democrats will actually try to make good on their priorities.

These are the divisions that are roiling the Democratic party as it seeks to broaden its appeal, become a permanent majority party, and set the terms of our politics after four decades of being relegated to a supporting role.

If you look closely, you can find these fault lines reflected in coverage of El-Sayed’s victory in the Michigan primary last Tuesday, like this report from the BBC:

In a year in which Republicans appear to be facing significant electoral headwinds, Democratic primary voters have taken a chance on a left-wing insurgent, raising the stakes in a Senate race in November that could decide overall control of the upper chamber.

The question is whether the way El-Sayed has electrified the party base and tapped into their anger will work on general election voters. And whether an unabashedly left-wing Democrat can win in a swing state. …

El-Sayed, the child of Egyptian immigrants, ran on a left-wing platform with the backing of such liberal stalwarts as Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. …

In debates and on the stump, El-Sayed proved to be the more gifted candidate, and Democrats seemed open to his policies, including government-sponsored health insurance, efforts to lower drug costs, higher taxes on the wealthy and campaign finance reform.

His campaign refrain—”money out of politics, money in your pocket”—has been a common one among left-wing candidates this election cycle.

That’s true. But it has also been a common refrain of candidates who do not self-identify as left wing. And there is nothing exclusively left-wing about advocating government-sponsored health insurance, lower drug costs, higher taxes on the wealthy, and campaign finance reform. In 2026, these are mainstream positions that poll well with a wide range of voters.

The Democratic party was experiencing internal conflict long before El-Sayed narrowly defeated a Chuck Schumer-backed opponent to claim the Michigan Senate nomination. National and state Democrats quickly closed ranks around El-Sayed after his victory, but in the background there was angst among Democrats who came of age during the long period of Republican ascendency in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

It makes sense that political professionals who think in ideological terms would be worried about positioning the party where the voters are. And El-Sayed will have to be an adept general election candidate to build the coalition he will need to win Michigan—although that same critique would have applied to his primary opponent Haley Stevens had she won.

Concerns about El-Sayed become misguided when they spill over to questions about the ideological direction of the party. When Democrats fret about candidates like El-Sayed pulling the party too far to the left, they are employing the very ideological framework that younger Democrats like El-Sayed and Talarico reject.

As we move into the 2028 presidential primary season a few months from now, you will probably see a lot of stories about how Democrats are engaged in an ideological civil war. Legacy media reporters tend to look for conflict wherever they can find it, and the narrative of Democrats in disarray has a well-worn history.

But the overlap between Talarico and El-Sayed suggests this framing distorts the larger picture of what’s happening to the party at a time when the allegiance of a wide range of voters is up for grabs.

The question of whether Democrats should move to the center or move to the left is overly simplistic and easy to answer. They can—and should—do both, depending on the constituencies they are trying to reach.

As parties grow, they should be capable of expanding their coalitions. Democratic socialists who can win in New York should be able to sit side-by-side with prairie populists who can win in Iowa, faith-driven economic populists who can compete in Texas, and self-described “moderates” or traditional Democrats who can win in Virginia.

This means looking beyond an ideological frame of reference and recalibrating the party to address the concerns of a diverse set of voters by promising to protect rights and liberties while rebuilding a middle class that has been gutted by the policies of the past four decades. Even self-described moderates can win with a message of fixing a broken system that’s rigged against ordinary people.

The essential matter is how Democrats can appeal to a post-Trump America and expand the number of voters who can find a home under their tent.

Changes like this are hard for a party to address. But it is a healthy and important debate for Democrats to have.

And it is not an accident that it’s happening now. When we look at the turmoil enveloping the Democratic party in the context of the self-immolation of the Republican party, it should be clear that what’s happening on one side is in response to the political fallout of what’s happening on the other.

Not just the parties but the party system is under pressure. Plenty of voters are up for grabs. What’s happening with Democrats is what we would expect to see during a period of great change—and great opportunity.

From this perspective, the Democratic party is hardly falling apart.

The conflict we’re seeing is not a civil war.

It’s growing pains.