The Big Democratic Party Debate Is Over—or Should Be

Mother Jones illustration; Liri Agami/Zuma; Stephanie Scarbrough/AP, Seth Wenig/AP

Ever since the reasonable woman lost to a narcissistic, racist, and misogynistic autocrat wannabe, the Democratic Party has been going through yet another painful round of the all-too-familiar debate: Should the party move to the center or adopt a more progressive stance to amass an electoral majority? This face-off has been recurring within the party for decades. For all the jawboning over the years, it has produced no consensus, and this fight is…boring. With the election results this week—a Democratic sweep everywhere—the debate is over. Or, at least, it should be.

That doesn’t mean there’s a resolution to the binary argument. One can end a debate without an ultimate and final decision. That’s what the Democrats ought to do. There’s never been a clear answer to the center-or-left question. And this election showed that within the party, lefties, such as Zohran Mamdani in New York, and centrists, such as Abigail Spanberger in Virginia and Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey, can each kick ass. Many commentators have made the obvious point: Candidates need to match the local electorate. Mamdani likely could not win statewide office in Virginia, and Spanberger likely could not excite the young voters who turned out in NYC for the democratic socialist.

There’s no need for the Democrats to continue shooting at each other and feeding the notion they have an identity crisis. The message is simple for them: We have a large tent and, dear voters, we offer you a buffet.

Looking for a politician to identify with? We give you a choice: Mamdani, Spanberger, Sherrill, Gavin Newsom, AOC, Andy Beshear, and others. Take your pick. No single one of them must be anointed the leader of the party. Desire a fierce progressive who will (rhetorically) kick Trump in the teeth? There’s this young buck in New York. Want a savvy strategist with a mostly liberal record who strives not to be seen as too liberal? Check out the governor of California. Looking for less-splashy, nose-to-the-grindstone workhorse politicians (big on mom energy), see Virginia and New Jersey. The Democratic Party can be a choose-your-own-adventure party. It is not in disarray. It is diverse.

This is the opposite of the current GOP, which is no more than a homogeneous cult of personality tied to one man and his whims. It has jettisoned principles and policies to serve an erratic authoritarian. It’s nothing but Trump. Love him, love the party. Otherwise, you’re out of luck. The Democrats, in contrast, reflect a wider swath of the electorate. That’s not a weakness. It’s a strength they should embrace.

Indeed, the party will more tightly define itself when it chooses a presidential nominee. That’s a winner-take-all process. One person gets the party crown and campaigns for the highest office. In European parliamentarian systems, parties as a whole compete to gain control of the executive branch. Not so here. In the United States, parties must select and swing behind a single politician who comes to represent the party. That will happen in 2027 and 2028, and what’s likely to be a competitive and robust primary contest will produce the party’s banner carrier. Until then, the Democrats should not obsess over the left-center branding issue.

For about 60 years—ever since Southern conservative Democrats bolted the party in response to its support for civil rights measures—the Democrats have been a center-left party. Both sides by now ought to understand that they need each other. It’s my hunch—and you might disagree—that a fully left party probably could not succeed on the national level in the United States within its two-party duopoly. And given the profound threat posed by Trump and his cronies, the formation of a popular front that covers a wide stretch of the ideological gamut is essential. This week’s elections demonstrate that the Democrats, with the help of independent voters, can build that.

Mamdani’s triumph was stunning, his win a tremendous accomplishment for the party’s left wing. He’s a generational talent. And now he will have the opportunity to prove whether a democratic socialist can successfully implement left-wing proposals—which should yield important lessons for progressives. Governing the sprawling Big Apple government, which too often has been prone to corruption, is a tough task, let alone changing its culture and injecting into it an ambitious agenda. Let’s wish him well. The question now is not whether a democratic socialist is good for the party, but whether one can succeed governing the biggest city in the nation.

In a way, the New Jersey race was more of an indicator of the current state of politics in America. Sherrill led Republican Jack Ciattarelli, a GOP businessman who had twice run for governor, by only a few points in the polls prior to Election Day. He had previously positioned himself as a not-so-Trumpy Republican. In this race, he campaigned with MAGA personalities and enthusiastically accepted Trump’s support. But he did not dwell on the president. A poll in October showed incumbent Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy’s job approval rating at 35 percent—lower than Trump’s.

This looked like a tight contest, especially since four years ago Murphy beat Ciattarelli by only 3 points in this Democratic state. Yet Sherrill won by a whopping 13 points. Jersey voters rallied behind this centrist Democrat more than New Yorkers flocked to Mamdani. And it’s hard not to read her margin of victory as a referendum on Trump. Though voters were dissatisfied with the Democratic governor and upset with rising food prices and skyrocketing health care premiums, they did not take it out on Sherrill. They renounced the candidate of the Trump Party. This is the election that Republicans across the country—especially those few House members in swing districts—ought to worry most about. Their biggest concern should not be a young socialist, but a working mom who campaigns as a mainstream Democrat.

At this moment, the barbarians are not at the gate; they are inside the White House, attacking democracy and deconstructing the United States of America. Millions of citizens are at risk of going hungry and losing their health care. The Democratic Party does not have time for navel-gazing. It’s a to-the-barricades moment.

I have no illusions. There will be squabbling over strategy and tactics. Centrists will still fear the agenda of progressives, and the progressives will gripe about opposition and obstacles posed by centrists. Yet these election results are a sign that that Democrats can win without settling this matter. Voters are not waiting for this debate to be concluded and a winner proclaimed. Few are interested in it. Precisely calculating an ideological course that appeals to a particular group of voters is not the key to Democratic victory. It can be a distraction. “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend.” Mao said that. He was a dictator who did not stick to his own advice, but that’s the right idea. Different strokes for different folks, as Sly Stone sang.

These off-year elections—let’s call it the Ballroom Blowout—included surprising Democratic wins in Mississippi and Georgia, and there’s a lesson for Democrats. With Trump continuing his cruel mass deportations, holding let-them-eat-cake parties while threatening food stamps for millions, razing parts of the White House and showing off his new marble bathroom, turning tariffs on and off recklessly, doing little to address economic concerns, and ignoring court orders, the Democrats are presented with much opportunity. Continuing to argue among themselves is counterproductive. They don’t need consensus to succeed. They need authentic candidates who have something to say and who convince voters they will be fighters for them. Remember what a Republican president once said about a house divided. The Democrats have been shown the way.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland.corn@gmail.com.

A tremendous injustice is about to be remedied: Warren Zevon has been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. For years, Zevon, a talented songwriter and performer, was sidelined by this exclusive club. But his superfans, including Billy Joel and Dave Letterman, pushed for his inclusion. Two years ago, Zevon, who died of mesothelioma in 2003 at the age of 56, reached the nominations list. At that time, I wrote a long piece in this newsletter explaining why he deserved admission. (His family replied with a warm and appreciative letter.) But he did not make the cut.

Zevon’s advocates pushed on, and this year he was inducted in the “musical influence” category. He ought to have been honored as a performer and songwriter, but this designation also makes sense, given how he shaped the work of such titans of rock as Bob Dylan, Neil Young, and Bruce Springsteen, even after they had established themselves as iconic figures.

Zevon is probably best known for his one hit, “Werewolves of London,” but across his 13 studio albums, he produced scores of memorable songs ranging from hard-boiled and cinematic narratives to tender ballads to melancholy tales of loss and love. He himself was a troubled soul—and his peccadillos often hampered his career. But he left behind an impressive body of work that remains a master class in songwriting. As a Zevon stan, I’m delighted he has received this recognition. I assume that if he were still among us, he would have both sneered and smiled at the news.

The judges debated this week whether there should be a separate category for Donald Trump. No matter how hard they try, they cannot ignore the constant stream of Trump idiocy. During an interview on Fox News, he spouted this beaut: “If I didn't have tariffs, the entire world would be in a depression."

There’s no serious economist who believes that. It’s hard to even figure out what Trump’s theory is. Whatever their potential merits, tariffs raise prices and can throttle economic activity. How does their absence lead to a global depression? Was the world economy in such a state at the start of this year? Not at all. Trump is off his rocker—and Republicans are afraid to say so.

In the same interview, he also said, “For 1,000 years, communism has not worked.”

Karl Marx published The Communist Manifesto in 1848. That’s 177 years ago. Does Trump think that feudalism somehow supplanted communism?

What took the cake—but not the trophy—for Trump was a remark that came during an interview with CBS News’ Norah O’Donnell. She raised the subject of Trump’s pardon of crypto czar Changpeng Zhao, who pleaded guilty to money laundering that the Justice Department said undermined US national security and who has also funneled money into World Liberty Financial, the Trump family’s crypto company: 

O'Donnell: Why did you pardon [Changpeng Zhao]?

Trump: Are you ready? I don't know who he is. I know he got a four-month sentence or something like that. And I heard it was a Biden witch hunt...

O'Donnell: In 2025, his crypto exchange Binance helped facilitate a $2 billion purchase of World Liberty Financial’s stablecoin. And then you pardoned CZ. How do you address the appearance of pay to play?

Trump: Here's the thing. I know nothing about it.

And the Republicans are trying to turn President Joe Biden’s use of an autopen into a national scandal?

After placing first last week, the ever-smug Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was back in contention. On CNN, Jake Tapper noted that former President Barack Obama has been assailing Trump and that even Republicans were expressing concerns about the “general optics” of Trump holding lavish parties at Mar-a-Lago and building a mega-ballroom at the White House while “a lot of Americans are hurting.” He asked Bessent, “What’s your response?” Trump’s top money guy shot back: “I believe President Obama played a record amount of golf of any president, so I'm not sure why he's out there throwing stones.”

This was a pathetic stab at whataboutism. Bessent’s attempted deflection made no sense, and it was false. According to journalist Philip Bump, Trump has played an estimated 331 rounds of golf during his first term and the past 10 months. This is two shy of the total for Obama over two terms.

As you would expect, there were many idiotic comments from the right on Mamdani’s win. Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) brayed about a statement in Mamdani’s victory speech: “‘There is no problem too large for government to solve and no concern too small for it to care about.’ That is a direct quote from Commie Mamdani! And it should terrify every single freedom-loving American.”

So if a local government cares about its citizens’ concerns, it’s oppressive and communist?

Far-right blowhard Matt Walsh made sure to racialize the contest:

Claiming that affordability—Mamdani’s signature issue—played no role in the campaign is extreme denialism. By the way, you can play with stats in many ways. Mamdani won 78 percent of voters 29 years old or younger and 36 percent of those over 65. But that doesn’t mean the campaign was only about the age of voters.

For our winner this week, we turn once again to House Speaker Mike Johnson. Unlike most significant news stories, the elections were something that he had heard about, and he offered an opinion:

There’s no surprises. What happened last night was blue states and blue cities voted blue. We all saw that coming. And no one should read too much into last night's election results. Off-year elections are not indicative of what's to come. That’s what history teaches us. By the way, it’s worthy of note that Zohran Mamdani himself only received a little over a million votes. One million and 36,000 votes. There are 8.3 million residents in New York City—8.5 million actually is the number, I think. So about 12 percent of the city voted to turn their city over to the communists.

Again with the communist thing? What a scoundrel. In any event, Mamdani won by almost 9 points, much more than Trump’s 1.6-point margin over Kamala Harris. And only 22 percent of Americans voted for Trump. Has Johnson ever referred to Trump as a minority president? As for off-year elections, they often are indicative of what’s to come. Robust Democratic showings in 2017 in New Jersey and Virginia were read as a sign of a potential blue wave in 2018—which did come. Johnson knows that—and, thus, he knows why he’s picking up yet another DCotW award.

Sometimes normalcy can be inspiring—especially during these days of absurd politics and mad-king governing. So I found it rather comforting to watch Mikie Sherrill’s victory address. She’s a conventional Democrat and politician. She’s not a spellbinding orator. She’s a Navy vet and a working mom, with a house full of teenagers. She seems to care about important issues and is ready to serve as a hard-working governor. It was a regular ol’ political speech, and that made it refreshing.

With obviously a Mamdani promise in mind, Stephen Wend wrote:

As far as social spending is concerned, Worcester, Massachusetts, the second largest city in New England, has free bus service. It started in March of 2020 and will continue well into 2026.

Fact-check: true. But I imagine an effort to remove fares from a system as big as the New York bus system will encounter issues and challenges that the good people of Worcester did not have to face.

Suzanne Skillman Nielson emailed about the issue on Trump and A House of Dynamite:

I can’t help thinking that Trump’s fatalistic attitude about nuclear war is the same as the fatalism with which many Americans stand by and do nothing about Trump’s destruction of our democracy, the EPA, our educational system, our health, and other crucial needs that are on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Fatalism is the new opiate of the people, keeping us from speech and action. Yes, both are scary in our current times when Trump’s fragile ego and vindictiveness lead to severe repercussions for those who dare to criticize and oppose him. Yes, individually we can feel powerless. However, we have a history of doing what is necessary, once as members of thirteen colonies and then as citizens of an independent nation because we banded together even when some of us were royalist or members of a minority. We are not alone, and sitting by just wringing our hands gives Trump carte blanche to continue his Shermanesque march to the sea leaving widespread destruction in his path. Is this how we want to go out? 

Philip Ratcliff reminded us of the case of Stanislav Petrov:

This situation happened in 1983, in the Soviet Union. A computer glitch indicated ICBMs launched from the U.S. were headed to the Soviet Union. A lieutenant colonel in charge opted not to launch a counterstrike. He prevented a potential disaster.

It’s true; Petrov might have saved the world. It’s worth reading about this.

A reader who wishes to be identified only as J.M. responded to my Q&A with Micah Sifry about what’s next for Palestine and Israel:

In 2012 my husband and I were fortunate enough to have a lovely Mediterranean cruise during which we spent two days visiting the old city of Jerusalem. We did not take an assigned tour during our visit, but wandered on our own. On the narrow little road that Jesus supposedly trod on his way to crucifixion, I was inspecting a restaurant built into a cave, while my husband lingered outside to talk with two shopkeepers who were sitting and chatting together outside of their respective businesses with coffee. My husband expressed amazement at their camaraderie, seeing as how one was Jewish and the other a Palestinian, judging by their head gear. He told them that in America the news tells us that you hate each other, and yet you are sitting here, exhibiting friendship. They chuckled grimly, nodded, and said “That is only the extremists on both sides. The rest of us have to get along because we have families to support.”

Jonothan Cullinane pointed out that it’s getting close to the time when I put out my Cracked Xmas playlist, full mostly of alternative holiday music. He wrote:

My nomination for this year's playlist: Phoebe Bridgers' version of Merle Haggard's "If We Make It Through December.” Never more so. 

Thanks, Jonothan. If other readers have suggestions, send them my way soon.

“I love windy fall days and running through the leaves.”
“That is fun, Moxie.”
“Why do they come down?”
“So new leaves can grow.”
“And then they come down, and we can run through those leaves?”
“Yes, you can.”
“I like this system.”