NY Daily News: Democrats must resist shifting far left

This political season, the major dynamic among Democrats is an “ideological” contest between the new “far left” and party moderates. I think it is less ideological than primordial.

Democrats are angry and frustrated. That anger is driven primarily by President Trump, compounded by surrounding himself with America’s richest and most powerful. Bernie Sanders’ decades-old cry against “oligarchy” now resonates because the moment has met the message. Economic hardship for working families and young people exacerbates their frustration and disenfranchisement, while a tepid Democratic leadership response adds to anti-establishment sentiment.

The anger doesn’t stop there.

Many Democrats, especially younger ones, are angry at Israel over Gaza. The deaths and suffering are unquestionably a grave human tragedy. But surprisingly, that anger has metastasized into actual antisemitism — not merely opposition to Israel’s government, but blaming Jewish Americans and contributing to antisemitic incidents, with physical assaults reaching record levels. Why are American Jews being targeted in a way no other ethnic or religious group has been in modern history?

Anti-Trump and antisemitic sentiment coalesce into a broader anti-establishment movement, fueled by younger voters and immigrants. In last year’s New York City mayoral election, I won among voters born in the city but lost among recent residents. In Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed dominated college towns and university counties, while Haley Stevens won more than 60% in Detroit and carried traditional Democratic strongholds.

This is more about emotion than ideology. If ideology were driving it, the movement would select candidates best positioned to defeat Republicans. Instead, it has chosen far-left candidates less competitive than many moderates they defeated.

The organized opposition is largely the Democratic Socialists of America, with only 120,000 members and little coherent ideology. Its platform reflects the deep frustration and alienation with the system: eliminate the presidency in favor of a parliamentary system, eliminate the Supreme Court and Senate, and defund the police.

Many of these proposals require constitutional amendments approved by two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states. Nor can a state realistically become socialist. “Tax the rich” and redistribution sound enticing, but ultimately risk driving wealth to the other 49 states.

What should Democrats do? Let it run its course. Trump will leave office, anti-Trump anger will subside, and hopefully peace will come to the Middle East. The more the DSA explains “radical change,” the less credible it becomes. Open borders and closing prisons defy common sense. “Free buses” and “tax the rich” will produce little positive change and potentially serious negative consequences, compounded by their incompetent executive management.

The short-term danger is November. Democrats will do well. History favors the non-incumbent party in midterms, while the Iran war and gasoline prices will matter. But another force is America’s instinct for balanced power. Trump’s presidency has been extraordinarily dominant. Americans distrust unbridled power and will support Democrats simply to restore a check on the president.

I fear that the far left will then claim responsibility for victory, strengthening its movement into 2028 and pressuring moderates to capitulate. That creates an opening for Republicans. Extremists can win blue states, but presidential elections and congressional control are decided in purple states, and America will not elect extremists and socialists.

Democrats need an honest discussion after a long look in the mirror. Do we become a fringe party driven by division and anger, or restore our progressive tradition of uniting people and governing effectively to improve people’s lives?

We have two years to decide.