Could the Democrats be their own worst enemy when it comes to winning over the working class? A recent piece in The Atlantic lays out a compelling case that the party’s refusal to temper its cultural stances might be costing it dearly at the ballot box. Let’s dive into this critique that’s stirring up quite the conversation.
Fox News reported that the Atlantic’s article, penned by assistant editor Marc Novicoff, argues that Democrats recognize the need to appeal to working-class voters but fail to adjust their progressive cultural policies, risking long-term electoral damage.
Novicoff’s piece, titled “Democrats Don’t Seem Willing to Follow Their Own Advice,” pulls no punches in pointing out this apparent contradiction.
It’s almost as if the party is stuck in a self-imposed ideological straitjacket, afraid to upset their base even when they know a course correction is overdue.
Some rising stars within the party have sounded the alarm, calling out Democrats for being perceived as too far left on cultural matters.
They’ve urged a return to mainstream values after a significant electoral setback, though specifics on which policies to ditch remain frustratingly vague.
Commentators, as Novicoff notes, have pressed Democrats to name the progressive policies they’d abandon, knowing full well it could spark outrage among their supporters. It’s a political tightrope—do they risk alienating their core or losing the broader electorate? One has to wonder if silence is their safest bet, even if it’s not the boldest.
Novicoff specifically highlights the party’s reluctance to distance itself from certain far-left positions on issues like transgender athletes in sports, immigration policies, and climate initiatives. This hesitation, he argues, stems from a fear of backlash that keeps Democrats tethered to stances many voters find out of touch.
Take Rep. Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y., who has publicly noted the political pendulum swinging too far left. His post-election shift on immigration—moving away from opposing deportations of undocumented immigrants with criminal records—was labeled a “flip-flop” by Politico. It’s a rare example of a Democrat risking the wrath of the base, and yet, it’s a calculated step.
Similarly, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro made waves with a symbolic gesture of moderation by legalizing hunting on Sundays.
As Novicoff quips, “No core constituency in the Democratic Party is outraged by the thought of hunting on Sundays,” which might explain why this move barely raised an eyebrow. It’s moderation without the mess—smart, but hardly earth-shaking.
Contrast this with Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., who faced intense pushback for opposing biological men competing in women’s sports.
Protests at his office, being branded with vile labels, and even drawing a primary challenge from a transgender opponent show the high cost of stepping out of line. Moulton’s own words cut deep: “Fear of backlash is what is holding many of my fellow Democrats back.”
Novicoff points to historical examples like former President Bill Clinton’s 1992 “Sister Souljah” moment as the benchmark for political courage.
Clinton publicly rebuked the rapper’s controversial racial remarks, drawing ire from far-left activists but signaling to moderates that he wasn’t beholden to every party orthodoxy. It’s a lesson in balancing principle with pragmatism that today’s Democrats might do well to revisit.
On the flip side, Novicoff credits former President Donald Trump for mastering selective moderation to win over swing voters.
In past campaigns, Trump promised to protect Social Security and Medicare while refusing a national abortion ban—moves that rankled some Republican stalwarts but resonated with a wider audience. It’s a playbook of picking battles wisely, something Democrats seem reluctant to borrow.
Why the hesitation? Novicoff suggests many Democrats sit in safe seats where the real threat isn’t a general election loss but a primary challenge from the left.
This dynamic keeps them tethered to policies that might not play well nationally, a strategy that could backfire when the stakes are higher.
At the national level, Novicoff warns that refusing to moderate is a recipe for defeat. While Republicans have morphed into a “big tent” movement accommodating diverse views, Democrats appear more rigid, policing acceptable opinions within their ranks. It’s a stark contrast that might leave the party looking out of step with a changing electorate.
Fox News Digital reached out to Torres and Shapiro for their take, but no immediate responses were forthcoming. Their silence, intentional or not, only fuels the narrative that Democrats are wrestling with how to address these critiques without fracturing their coalition.
