The rise of Democrats’ left wing will hurt democracy

This article generally aligns with a Center Right point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Ideas expressed in the piece

• The column contends that the recent success of left-wing Democratic candidates, exemplified by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s endorsed slate and Darializa Avila Chevalier’s upset win in New York’s 13th Congressional District, signals a growing dominance of democratic socialists and progressive activists within the party that will ultimately damage American democracy by sidelining moderates and fueling polarization.^[6][9][12]
• The piece argues that Avila Chevalier’s past statements and social media posts — including calls to abolish police, prisons, and borders, and harsh attacks on national Democratic leaders — are so extreme and culturally alienating that Republicans can easily weaponize them in nationwide attack ads, turning a local New York race into a national cautionary tale for swing voters.
• The article frames these developments as part of a broader pattern, citing similarly controversial or staunchly progressive Democratic nominees in places like Maine and Michigan, and linking them to the influence of figures such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose success has persuaded younger activists that ideological purity and emotional “energy” matter more than experience or moderation.^[3][5][11]
• The column maintains that progressives have concluded the strategy of nominating cautious, competent moderates to counter Trump-style politics has failed, and that Trump’s norm‑breaking victories prove that enthusiasm and authenticity can outweigh respectability, encouraging Democrats to “fight fire with fire” by elevating their own ideological insurgents.^[5][8]
• The piece acknowledges that many Democrats still nominate pragmatic, conventional candidates in competitive states, highlighting someone like former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper as evidence that moderation can still deliver statewide victories, but insists that the long‑term “vibe” and trajectory of the party increasingly resembles the Republican Party’s Tea Party and early MAGA eras.
• The article warns that as both parties empower their most passionate and least restrained factions, compromise becomes stigmatized as surrender, moderation is derided as weakness, and liberal democracy is increasingly treated as an obstacle rather than a shared achievement, creating conditions in which rival extremes feed off each other and push politics toward instability.^[10]
• The column ultimately argues that answering right‑wing extremism with a left‑wing counter‑extremism — rather than reinforcing norms and policing one’s own side — amounts to a “race to the bottom” that risks producing a broader democratic crisis, concluding that the rising generation of activists and candidates on both sides suggests “the kids are not all right.”

Different views on the topic

• Many political scientists and survey researchers note that both white and nonwhite Democrats have been moving left on a range of issues for more than a decade, and argue that the rise of outspoken progressives reflects this genuine ideological shift among rank‑and‑file voters, enhancing democratic responsiveness rather than undermining it.^[3][5][11]
• Analysts observing the 2026 primaries emphasize that candidates like Avila Chevalier are winning in solidly Democratic urban districts where the party is almost certain to retain the seat, suggesting that nominating democratic socialists in such areas carries limited general‑election risk while giving formal political representation to younger, more diverse, and more activist constituencies.^[6][9][10]
• Coverage of recent primaries points out that moderates and establishment‑aligned Democrats continue to prevail in many competitive races, indicating that the party is not uniformly “sprinting left” but instead is allowing intraparty experimentation on the left while still prioritizing electability in swing districts and statewide contests.^[4][7][10]
• Progressive organizers and some policy experts contend that ambitious left‑leaning agendas on economic inequality, labor rights, health care, and climate change are necessary to address the structural conditions that have fueled right‑wing populism, and argue that centrist approaches have failed to prevent the growth of Trumpism or to deliver tangible improvements for many communities.^[1][5][8]
• Youth polling shows that younger voters overwhelmingly disapprove of Trump and lean strongly toward voting for Democrats in upcoming elections, a pattern some strategists interpret as evidence that aligning with more progressive priorities may energize a crucial generation of voters rather than alienate the broader electorate.^[2][11]
• Several scholars maintain that the two parties are not equally radicalized, noting that Republican extremism has more frequently challenged basic democratic procedures, while Democratic progressives, despite sharp rhetoric, generally continue to operate within institutional rules and accept electoral outcomes, suggesting that the left’s rise does not pose the same systemic threat.^[5][8][10]
• Critics of centrist Democratic strategy argue that decades of compromise on economic policy and racial justice helped create the resentments that right‑wing populists have exploited, and therefore see the growth of a more robust left wing as a corrective that could stabilize democracy in the long run by addressing underlying grievances instead of merely managing polarization at the surface.^[1][5][8]