SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
centrism
Hey Schumer and Newsom, It’s Not Leadership to Abandon the People Who Need You Most
The Democratic Party’s retreat to centrism—from welfare reform in the 90s to recent budget deals—has consistently weakened its own base while signaling to Republicans that cruelty works.
Mar 29, 2025
It’s a tale as old as American liberalism: Say the right thing—but only when it’s safe, and only after the damage is done.
Earlier this month, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) had a choice to draw the line and stand up to a Republican-led budget that proposed slashing essential services like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Section 8 housing assistance. Instead, after publicly criticizing the bill, he reversed course in under 24 hours and urged Democrats to pass it—calling it the “best path forward to avoid a shutdown.”
This is what establishment leadership looks like: performative urgency wrapped in political safety.The families who rely on SNAP and Section 8 aren’t breathing easier because D.C. stayed open. They’re still wondering how to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads.
Schumer and Newsom want to be seen as steady hands.The country doesn’t need politicians who manage decline gracefully. They need leaders who disrupt the status quo to protect the people it was never built to serve.
Meanwhile, California Gov. Gavin Newsom decided to deny support to trans athletes. On the first episode of his new podcast, This Is Gavin Newsom, he said it was “deeply unfair” for trans women to compete in women’s sports—framing that echoed right-wing rhetoric used to push anti-trans legislation.
And he didn’t say it to a neutral audience—he said it toCharlie Kirk, a far-right extremist who has spent years spreading anti-LGBTQ+ disinformation and promoting voter suppression through Turning Point USA.
Newsom invited him on as his first guest in an effort to appear “bipartisan.” That move alone signals more than a desire to reach across the aisle—it signals whose approval he’s seeking.
This wasn’t a spontaneous exchange—it was a calculated move, and a political wink to the center-right, packaged as “balance.” And it came from the same man who once signed a bill making California a sanctuary state for trans youth. That contrast gave right-wing media a fresh soundbite.
Even Rep.Sarah McBride (D-Del.)—the first openly trans member of Congress—recently urged Democrats to make room for people with “honest questions” about trans inclusion in sports. But those questions aren’t neutral. They’re part of a long, strategic assault on trans people’s dignity.
State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-11), one of the few who consistently shows up for trans communities, called it out immediately: “Trans people are under attack. They need support, not betrayal.”
In March 2024, Schumer gave a speech condemning Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu and calling for elections in Israel—after more than 30,000 Palestinians were already dead. The speech was safe, and the policy—uninterrupted U.S. military aid—remained unchanged.
This is what performative politics looks like in action: too late, too safe, and too empty.
We’re told these are “tough choices.” But they’re only tough if your priority is your career. When Democrats lose ground, they often shift to the center—abandoning bold policies and the people who need them most.
But history shows that doesn’t win back power—it loses trust. As American Affairs Journal outlines, the party’s retreat to centrism—from welfare reform in the 90s to recent budget deals—has consistently weakened its own base while signaling to Republicans that cruelty works.
I know the cost of centrist politics because I lived it. In the 90s, Democrats embraced welfare reform and tough-on-crime laws to look “tough” and “moderate.”
That turn helped criminalize poverty. I was convicted of welfare fraud. I wasn’t gaming the system; I was surviving it. Whole communities were punished in the name of bipartisanship. So when Democrats today praise “moderation,” I hear echoes of policies that nearly erased me.
If you’re poor, trans, undocumented, disabled, or Palestinian—these choices don’t look tough. They look familiar.
And they cause harm. When people with power echo right-wing talking points, they legitimize them. They embolden bills that restrict bodily autonomy, gut benefits, and criminalize survival. They signal that marginalized people—their lives and dignity—are negotiable.
Schumer and Newsom want to be seen as steady hands.The country doesn’t need politicians who manage decline gracefully. They need leaders who disrupt the status quo to protect the people it was never built to serve.
So where are the leaders?
Not the ones who speak up after it’s politically safe. Not the ones who adjust their stances based on polling data, shifting with the wind instead of standing for something. Where are the ones who lead from the front?
Real leadership is not polished. It’s the woman clearing her record. It’s the trans activist running mutual aid while dodging attacks. It’s the undocumented student organizing for housing justice with no promise of safety.
And it is me, a formerly incarcerated queer Black woman who went back to college in her 50s. Who found her voice not in press rooms but in courtrooms, classrooms, and community spaces. Who survived systems designed to erase her and came back fighting for others still trapped inside them.
Real change doesn’t trickle down—it rises up. From organizing, solidarity, and movements that center the people most impacted and most ignored.
Real leaders are not waiting on permission. They are building with the people already creating justice—one expungement, one coalition, one unapologetic truth at a time.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Clinton Campaign Is Obstructing Change to the Democratic Platform
As one of Bernie’s delegates, I’m disappointed so far. But we’re still fighting hard.
Jun 28, 2016
The Democratic platform process is finally underway, and the main issue is this: Did the campaign of Bernie Sanders really alter the Democratic Party? The answer is not yet entirely clear, but on many key issues so far the Hillary Clinton campaign has been unwilling to commit to delivering specifics about fundamental change in America, which have been at the heart of Sanders' campaign.
I've had a front-row seat to the first round of the process, as 1 of 5 delegates Sanders named to draft the platform. (The Clinton campaign named six, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee, added four more.) We spent two weeks listening to powerful testimony from citizens around the country, and then on Friday in St. Louis we started taking votes.
"We need not platitudes but a platform. Not aspirations but commitments."
And it was there that the essential dynamic quickly emerged. The Clinton campaign was ready to acknowledge serious problems: We need fair trade policy, inequality is a horrible problem, and unchecked climate change will wreck the planet. But when it came to specific policy changes, they often balked. Amendments against the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement and backing Medicare for all failed, with all the Clinton delegates voting against.
At which point we got (about 11 p.m., in a half-deserted hotel ballroom) to the climate section of the platform, and that's where things got particularly obvious. We all agreed that America should be operating on 100 percent clean energy by 2050, but then I proposed, in one amendment after another, a series of ways we might actually get there. A carbon tax? Voted down 7-6 (one of the DNC delegates voted with each side). A ban on fracking? Voted down 7-6. An effort to keep fossils in the ground, at least on federal land? Voted down 7-6. A measure to mandate that federal agencies weigh the climate impact of their decisions? Voted down 7-6. Even a plan to keep fossil fuel companies from taking private land by eminent domain, voted down 7-6. (We did, however, reach unanimous consent on more bike paths!)
In other words, the Clinton campaign is at this point rhetorically committed to taking on our worst problems, but not willing to say how. Which is the slightly cynical way politicians have addressed issues for too long--and just the kind of slickness that the straightforward Sanders campaign rejected.
Happily, the process is only one-third complete. And Team Sanders has claimed some victories: a strong stand against the death penalty, for instance, and remarkable in-depth language on Native American rights. Now the platform discussion heads to Orlando, where 187 delegates will weigh it in more depth. And the issues on which they still can't agree can then be raised on the convention floor in Philadelphia.
To some, the point of the whole exercise is unclear. Platforms don't matter, right? But this is a new kind of election: The Sanders campaign has been about issues, issues, issues. I mean, the guy gives 90-minute speeches every day that are entirely about actual things that need to change. It seems weird in an American political context, which is normally about posturing and spin, but for many of us it's refreshing.
To others, pushing for a strong platform seems risky. Won't it somehow help Donald Trump if we keep airing these questions? Shouldn't we just shut up and fall in line behind Hillary?
No one wants Trump to win. But many of us look at the Brexit vote and see that unenthusiastic centrism has a hard time beating zealous craziness. We need unions and working people and environmentalists fully engaged this time around, backing the Democrats with passion and energy. Above all we need young people, who voted for Bernie by a 7-to-1 proportion.
Which is why we need not platitudes but a platform. Not aspirations but commitments. Not happy talk, but the fully adult conversation that Sanders engaged the country in for the past year. Cornel West, with his usual succinct eloquence, said that in the end the platform debate came down to telling the truth. The truth is, we're in a world of hurt. That hurt--economic, social, environmental--is driving the unsettling politics of our moment. That hurt needs to be addressed.
Orlando and Philly are the two places left where that can happen; I'm willing to bet the platform will get substantially stronger before all is said and done, because I think the Sanders run really has changed the party, and very much for the better.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Is Gore Really The Lesser Evil?
Jun 20, 2000
Are progressives irresponsible in supporting Ralph Nader? Won't they enable a Bush presidency, just as liberals' aversion to Hubert Humphrey helped elect Richard Nixon? As a Nader voter, I accept the importance of this question. Nonetheless, I am not convinced that progressives today must support Al Gore to avert social catastrophe.
I am more impressed by the similarities than the differences between the major candidates. Furthermore, I believe any election analysis that merely juxtaposes positions misleads us. Promises are made during campaigns, but the most important result of an election is the forces mobilized both for and against the incoming administration. In 1992, Bill Clinton promised to "put people first" by rebuilding the nation's infrastructure. He won a bare plurality of the vote and the undying hatred of the bond market. He quickly backed off and became a born again fiscal conservative.
Both George W. Bush and Gore are ardent supporters of corporate globalism. Gore's devotion in the face of evidence that global capitalism weakens workers' bargaining position and degrades the environment speaks volumes about his candidacy. Just as significantly, in the post-Cold War era both Gore and Bush promise to increase military spending and confine debate to the best Star Wars option.
Bush and Gore do differ on Social Security and tax policy. Bush would privatize part of Social Security. He would cut capital gains and estate taxes further. Both steps would exacerbate our gaping inequalities and make our prosperity even more dependent on market fluctuations.
These would be dangerous steps, but we must ask why these themes resonate. Ten years ago, any Republican touting Social Security privatization would invite disaster. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration has done so good a job selling the absurd notion that Social Security is fiscally unsound that a majority now believe it won't be around when they retire. These dire prognoses are, however, based on projected rates of national growth slower than those of the Depression era. Should these projections prove correct, Social Security shortfalls will be among the least of our difficulties.
The administration's response to this pseudo problem is to "lock up" the growing budget surplus in order to save Social Security. These funds are, of course, not actually stored in a separate vault but are used to pay off government debt. Though paying down the debt may sound like a worthy idea, its consequence is that social investment in schools, energy- efficient transit systems and basic research is neglected. The much touted productivity gains of the last few years owe more to past government development of the computer and the Internet than to Bill Gates. Unfortunately, current austerity only diminishes future seed corn.
A Gore presidency would face continued worries about Social Security -- and probably in the context of an economy less robust than the past two years. Having sworn off activist government, it will likely need to embrace some combination of Social Security cuts, partial privatization and tax breaks for the rich in order to stave off media criticism.
Looking at our politics over the last quarter century, two trends stand out: 1) a shrinking electorate, and 2) the gradual erosion of working-class support for the Democratic Party. As Ray Teixeira and Joel Rogers have argued in a new book, high school-educated clerical, service sector, and factory workers are the real swing voters in American politics. A quarter century of economic stagnation and social conflict have caused some of these voters to move right. Economic decline at the end of the Bush administration gave Clinton's campaign a chance to regain some, but his trade agenda and botched health care initiatives leave the Democrats a weakened presidential party facing a hostile Congress.
A victorious Bush may be able to push Social Security "reforms," but he will likely bring few Democrats along and he will tag his party as responsible for the consequences. Nor will he, unlike Clinton or Gore, be able to mobilize the many Democrats any administration needs to enact more "free trade" deals.
Neither party attracts an effective majority of the population. A Nader candidacy is good for our politics even if it means a Bush victory. Nader is the only candidate who combines progressive reforms of international commerce, universal health care, reproductive rights and a positive role for government in providing necessary social capital. Democrats in power will never address these concerns unless they face the threat of losing voters to someone who will.
The very presence in the race of a well-known third-party nominee will also force a long overdue discussion of the laws and semi-official practices that sustain the two party monopoly. Paradoxically, Nader could also force Gore to advance more progressive initiatives He may also excite more liberal voters and thus benefit congressional Democrats. Al Gore's greatest enemy isn't Ralph Nader or George W. Bush. It is the unimaginative centrism that currently passes for political wisdom.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular