The Double Standard

Nolan Higdon Substack

How the Establishment Neutralizes Economic Populism

“Democratic Socialists Occupy Wall Street 2011 Shankbone” by david_shankbone is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

“I’ll just make it clear, there’s no way I’m ever coming out for El-Sayed right now. And like, until—you know, this is a guy who has made it very clear his views toward—and has refused to back off his views toward Jewish Americans. And I hope he comes out and clarifies where he is. I also hope that he does the right thing and condemns Hasan Piker clearly and the language very clearly.” This statement, made by Representative Joshua Gottheimer (D-NJ), during a CNN broadcast on August 25, 2026, encapsulates a growing rift within the Democratic Party between establishment democrats such as Gottheimer and insurgent economic populist candidates such as El-Sayed.

Organized through networks built since the 2011 Occupy Wall Street movement and expanded during the 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, in 2026, economic populist candidates are securing key Democratic primary victories across the nation. Indeed, in 2026 there has been a historically large number of incumbents unseated in primaries. Many of these figures maintain active ties to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the nation’s largest socialist political organization, and voice sharp criticisms of American financial and military assistance to Israel.

To counter this momentum, establishment Democrats have leveraged media narratives relying on ahistorical analogies, arguments regarding electability, identitarian politics, and claims of guilt by association to convince voters to back status-quo candidates. These strategies, which are increasingly failing to stem progressive gains, risk plunging the Democratic Party—which otherwise had a straightforward path to electoral success in 2026—into a state of divisive conflict that could erode its broader prospects at the ballot box.Subscribe

Ahistorical Comparison: Blue MAGA

“Still from swearing in of Zohran Mamdani as Mayor of the City of New York, City Hall Station 04” by Unknown authorUnknown author is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Following the election of Zohran Mamdani, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), as mayor of New York City in 2025, The New Republic declared that “The Democratic Tea Party Is Here.” The article framed the surging popularity of economic populism within the Democratic Party as an equivalent to the post-2008 anti-tax, right-wing Tea Party movement. The Tea Party movement famously ousted numerous incumbent Republicans and served as a precursor to President Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) coalition remaking the Republican Party in 2016.

The comparison between economic populists and the right-wing Tea Party persisted into the spring of 2026. Michael Steele, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee who serves as a news media commentator, drew a direct parallel between the conservative movement and rising economic populists, warning in a headline that he saw a similar insurgent dynamic brewing on the political left. By late summer, following primary victories by economic populists—most notably Dr. Abdul El-Sayed defeating United States Representative Haley Stevens in the Michigan Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate—The New York Times published an article arguing that Democrats faced their own Tea Party moment.

However, comparing economic populists within the Democratic Party to the Tea Party presents a fundamental false equivalency. The Tea Party was heavily funded and guided by corporate interests seeking to persuade voters that government interventions following the Great Recession—such as higher taxes and regulatory oversight—were harmful to working-class Americans. Conversely, the contemporary economic populist movement targets those concentrated wealth interests, championing policies designed to foster structural economic fairness. Rather than aligning with entrenched power, economic populists directly challenge it, which explains the fierce backlash from party leadership.

Rather than welcoming the incoming voters and energy generated by economic populists to integrate them into the broader coalition, establishment Democrats have cautioned that these politics will fundamentally transform the party and alienate crucial voters. In response to these insurgent victories, party leaders have openly urged the progressive wing to exit the organization entirely. Jaime Harrison, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), publicly criticized the faction, asserting that candidates who expressed disdain for the party apparatus should refrain from seeking its nomination. James Carville, a veteran Democratic political strategist and former chief advisor to President Bill Clinton, established an even sharper line of opposition. Appearing across multiple television news outlets and commentary platforms, Carville urged the party to embrace a formal schism, declaring that candidates aligned with the DSA had no place within the Democratic mainstream and emphasizing that he did not view himself as part of their coalition.

Carville’s outright hostility toward party insurgents is striking given his own role in reshaping the organization during the rise of “Clintonism,” in the 1990s. Clinton was a key leader within the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), an organization that established “Third Way” politics or neoliberalism. This political strategy shifted the party away from traditional, labor-focused economic policies toward corporate donor interests and market-based governance, while maintaining socially progressive stances on race, gender, and identity. This framework deliberately excludes economic populism. Neoliberal policy favors interest-bearing loans over direct assistance to avoid the tax increases on wealthy donors that could jeopardize their party loyalty.

Neoliberal establishment figures have directed the Democratic Party since the 1990s, and a growing segment of the electorate holds this approach responsible for the nation’s political and economic vulnerabilities. Following severe losses in the 2024 elections, the party experienced significant fundraising shortfalls from voters and donors dissatisfied with its direction. Critical post-election reviews were largely minimized or abandoned to protect well-compensated political consultants from direct accountability for key missteps. These included downplaying public concerns regarding President Joseph Biden’s cognitive capacity, framing real economic distress as a simple communication or perception issue, and maintaining military support for Israel despite international human rights organizations condemning the military campaign in Gaza as a genocide.

Following the 2024 election cycle, the Democratic brand suffered significant reputational damage, leading party leadership to retreat from competing in traditionally conservative regions despite low public approval ratings for President Donald Trump and the broader Republican platform. In states like Nebraska, for instance, the party apparatus opted against fielding a major partisan campaign, throwing its institutional weight behind independent populists such as industrial mechanic and former labor leader Dan Osborn, whose distance from the national Democratic brand appeals to working-class voters. What the historic Tea Party and contemporary economic populists fundamentally share is an insurgent momentum: both movements emerged to reshape a political establishment that had severely weakened its own coalition through decades of compromised policies, unpopular positions, and uninspiring candidates.

The “Electability” Farce

“Palavali and El-Sayed” by TheCreativeWolf is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.

“We’d better get that message and turn it around before we become extinct,” exclaimed former New York Governor David Paterson on 77 WABC radio. Paterson was attempting to legitimize a tactic frequently deployed by Democratic Party leadership: discouraging voters from supporting economic populist candidates by stoking fears about their electability.

Establishment figures within the Democratic Party regularly utilize major media platforms to prioritize status-quo candidates over economic populists. A central strategy relies on framing electability—a slippery concept defined largely by establishment politicians and media figures. This strategy often involves warning audiences that economic populists are unelectable while framing their opponents as preferable moderates.

This dynamic emerged in the 2026 Maine United States Senate race involving Democratic candidate Graham Platner, an oyster farmer and military veteran running as an economic populist. Media coverage frequently framed Platner as an uncompromising radical while characterizing incumbent Republican Senator Susan Collins—long viewed as an establishment favorite—as a moderate figure. In retrospect, characterizing Platner as unelectable may have proven accurate, though not for the reasons cited by establishment figures; his exit from the race following sexual assault allegations happened later. Nonetheless, framing Collins as a moderate disregards her legislative history. Critics point to Collins’ votes supporting prolonged military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, her authorization of military escalations involving Iran, her support for military actions in Gaza that the United Nations found to be a “genocide,” and her instrumental role in confirming Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who later voted to restrict abortion rights, after she assured the public he would protect reproductive rights.

However, public faith in establishment political brokers to accurately judge electability has waned as high-profile figures repeatedly praised for their strong viability, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vice President Kamala Harris, suffered general election losses. Conversely, economic populist candidates in Democratic Party races who were dismissed as non-viable by party leadership—such as New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and United States House of Representatives candidates Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier—secured primary victories despite news media claims that they were unelectable.

To explain away the victories of economic populists deemed non-electable by the establishment, Democratic Party figures have issued the false claim that economic populism is a phenomenon confined strictly to blue states and districts. For example, former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel claimed that all economic populists accomplish is turning blue districts a darker shade of blue. Emanuel asserted that by challenging establishment incumbents, economic populists had “lost the plot,” noting that the primary objective ought to be defeating Republicans. Echoing Emanuel’s concern, CNN analyst Van Jones warned that economic populists were pushing the party too far left and risking the loss of crucial swing voters. Television host Bill Maher concurred on his program Real Time with Bill Maher, mocking the general election prospects of economic populists by remarking, “Guys, there’s got to be an easier way to lose the swing states,” while noting that the rising profile of the DSA put his own vote “in-play.” Similarly, the Brookings Institution, a prominent public policy think tank in Washington, D.C., minimized these wins by concluding that DSA-aligned candidates were primarily succeeding in regions that were already solidly liberal.

The claim that economic populists can only win in blue states and are unelectable everywhere else is belied by basic electoral evidence. Progressive insurgents have won Democratic primary victories in competitive swing states and traditionally conservative regions. Prominent examples include Dr. Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, Angie Nixon in Florida, Melat Kiros in Colorado, Christopher Rabb in Pennsylvania, and Donavan McKinney in Michigan. A progressive populist candidate also narrowly missed securing the Democratic nomination for governor in Wisconsin, further demonstrating that the movement’s appeal extends well beyond traditional left-leaning enclaves.

At the heart of the electability strategy lie two fundamentally different understandings of electoral politics. Third Way neoliberals seek to attract the mythical centrist or former Republican voter, whereas economic populists contend that a robust agenda transforming working-class material conditions will energize a significant portion of the roughly one hundred million eligible non-voters who abstain under the belief that voting makes no practical difference in their daily lives.

The Identitarian Defense

“Darializa Avila Chevalier during interview on Secretos CEO” by A LO CLARO and Indhira Baez is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

With the argument of electability diminished and economic populists demonstrating their appeal to voters in competitive swing states and traditionally conservative jurisdictions, establishment figures pivoted toward another long-standing rhetorical weapon: identitarianism. Identitarianism describes a political outlook wherein individuals define themselves and others primarily through demographic group memberships—such as race, religion, culture, or gender—rather than through individual or ideological characteristics. However, political commentary frequently conflates demographic identity with shared ideology.

For example, on the issue of racial justice, people of color do not share a uniform ideological pathway toward achieving equity. A progressive activist of color, such as filmmaker Boots Riley, might argue that systemic capitalism itself causes structural inequality and that a fundamental redistribution of wealth is necessary to support marginalized communities. Meanwhile, a centrist like Representative Ritchie Torres might contend that market-based solutions offer the most viable path, advocating for deregulation, capital investments and tax incentives to encourage business development within communities of color. Conversely, a conservative like Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas might argue that federal government intervention regarding race is inherently problematic and counterproductive.

These perspectives represent three distinct ideological frameworks. Simply evaluating candidates based on shared identity ignores the foundational economic and political beliefs that govern their policymaking. Relying on superficial representation serves establishment figures well, as it allows them to dismiss critiques of neoliberal policies as racially or socially regressive rather than engaging with substantive policy arguments. This is precisely the strategy party leadership has deployed to marginalize economic populists.

Many establishment figures have claimed that economic populism appeals almost exclusively to college-educated white voters. The Guardian reported in August 2026 that “Centrist Democrats have long argued that the democratic socialist wing of the party might succeed with white, college-educated voters but struggles to connect with African American communities.” During the same period, CNN Senior Political Analyst Nia-Malika Henderson asserted that economic populists “winning, not with traditionally, you know, Democratic voters, not with Black voters, but with younger, with whiter and more college-educated voters.” Similarly, CNN host Fareed Zakaria argued that the rise of economic populism occurred because “college educated Democrats moved left further and faster” than working-class voters. Conservative media outlets, including The Daily Caller, joined the commentary by labeling these voting blocs as manifestations of “big-city socialism.”

This emphasis on identity reveals a double standard that establishment figures rarely face. During the 2016 presidential primary, supporters of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders were characterized in news media as “Bernie Bros,” a label intended to frame their critiques of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as inherently sexist. However, Clinton was not similarly criticized for racial or religious prejudice when her supporters opposed then-Senator Barack Obama in the 2008 primary or Sanders in 2016. In another instance, former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a white lady, avoided being called a racist after she challenged party norms by contesting a Florida congressional district seat in 2026 that had been held by Black representatives for over three decades.

Furthermore, the characterization of economic populists as demographically narrow is challenged by progressive primary victories in densely populated urban centers and racially diverse regions, including Brooklyn, Washington D.C., Colorado, and Florida. The economic populists’ identities reflect the diverse demographics establishment Democrats have fetishized for over a decade. Indeed, there is racial, gender, and religious diversity among figures in office such as “The Squad” and Zohran Mamdani as well as candidates such as Claire Valdez, Darializa Avila Chevalier, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, Angie Nixon, and Christopher Rabb.

However, establishment leadership has shown reluctance to fully embrace these new electoral coalitions because their primary concern centers on ideological consistency rather than demographic diversity. Party leadership has long favored elevating neoliberal candidates who provide visible demographic representation while remaining aligned on corporate-friendly, market-focused policies. This explains why establishment figures rarely celebrate or highlight the historically marginalized identities of economic populists, such as the religious heritage of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders or the demographic background of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Under this framework, neoliberal strategists prioritize symbolic diversity while rejecting systemic policy changes.

After a decade of party leadership attempting to mute economic debate through symbolic identitarianism, a growing segment of the electorate has grown frustrated. Voters are increasingly moving away from purely symbolic representation—such as voting for historic demographic firsts—and prioritizing policies that yield direct improvements in their daily living standards. Yet, establishment figures continue to pound the symbolic gestures in place of substantive policy debates. For example, when Dr. Abdul El-Sayed won his Democratic U.S. Senate primary in Michigan, media commentator Van Jones reduced the victory to one that inspired young Muslim and Arab Americans to enter politics.

While symbolic representation holds genuine importance, for many voters, tangible material improvements—including higher wages, reduced living costs, expanded funding for higher education, and secure retirement—take precedence over demographic representation alone. This dynamic is especially clear given that opposing establishment figures, regardless of their identity, remains popular with the electorate. For example, Democratic congressional candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier won her primary campaign for New York’s 13th Congressional District despite public scrutiny over a social media post which read “Fuck Kamala Harris.” Similarly, Democratic candidate for Alaskan Governor Mary Peltola advanced to the general election after rejecting a formal endorsement from Harris. These dynamics suggest that many Democratic primary voters prioritize candidate platforms and material policy over strict national party alignment or shared demographic background.

At the same time, progressive platforms such as Track AIPAC are utilized by economic populists to highlight establishment-backed candidates who use marginalized identities while supporting unfettered military aid to Israel. In several high-profile primary contests, substantial financial advantages have failed to guarantee victory for establishment candidates. A prominent example is former National Security Council official Alexander Vindman, a key figure during the first impeachment proceedings of President Donald Trump, who lost his primary to economic populist Angie Nixon despite outraising her campaign by a nine-to-one margin.

Guilt by Association

“James Carville (5817022049) (cropped)” by JD Lasica from Pleasanton, CA, US is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

“If he becomes a force in the Democratic Party, I’m out of here,” exclaimed veteran Democratic Party strategist James Carville. Carville was referring to Hasan Piker, a popular left-wing commentary host on the live-streaming platform Twitch, who had been actively campaigning alongside economic populist political candidates. Piker faced criticism in establishment media circles over past controversial remarks. While some assertions involved statements for which Piker had previously issued public apologies—such as his commentary regarding the 9/11 attacks—others involved interpretations of his political analysis. Media outlets, including The Atlantic, drew sharp comparisons, equating Piker’s rhetoric to the isolationist platform associated with Charles Lindbergh, the 20th-century aviator who led the non-interventionist America First Committee prior to the World War II.

Critics frequently highlighted a specific statement by Piker regarding domestic foreign policy debates: “If Jews in America keep putting this idea out there that they are singularly invested in Israel, eventually someone is going to come around and take action—not against the state of Israel, mind you, but against American Jews.” Read within its broader analytical framework, Piker was contending that when foreign governments—such as the state of Israel, which has faced severe formal accusations of “genocide” from international bodies including the United Nations (UN) over its military actions in Gaza—are framed as synonymous with global Judaism, that conflation risks directing misplaced public hostility toward Jewish individuals globally rather than toward specific political and military leadership.

Despite these contextual distinctions, intense political pressure compelled several Democratic figures, including Michigan political candidate Dr. Abdul El-Sayed and U.S. Senator John Ossoff (D-GA), to publicly distance themselves from Piker. This outcome aligns directly with what establishment leadership intended when leveraging the fallacy of guilt by association to undermine economic populist candidates.

The guilt by association approach sees establishment media and political figures demand that insurgent candidates explicitly denounce controversial allies, commentators, or high-profile supporters. Refusal is assumed to be an endorsement of everything that person has said, when in fact, as is the case with every human on earth, candidates sometimes agree with some of what people say. The guilt by association attack was used during the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, when Senator Bernie Sanders was pressured by establishment figures to repudiate the tacit endorsement of popular podcast host Joe Rogan. Conversely, establishment candidates are rarely subjected to identical demands. During the 2024 presidential election, Vice President Kamala Harris actively welcomed the official endorsement of former Vice President Dick Cheney—a primary architect of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the illegal detention and torture that followed. Despite embracing Cheney’s endorsement, Harris was not pressured by the establishment to denounce Cheney because he was part of the establishment.

If news outlets and political organizations intend to demand that candidates account for their associations, applying a single, consistent standard across all political factions remains essential for genuine accountability. As the late political satirist and social critic George Carlin observed, “Let’s not have a double standard. One standard will do just fine.”

Conclusion

Establishment Democrats continue to deploy every available political mechanism to maintain ideological control over the party apparatus. The party leadership, along with its aligned corporate donors and political consultants, prefers a framework hospitable to corporate interests—a model where significant political contributions sustain candidates who advance market-friendly policies while keeping economic populists at bay.

However, this corporate-backed grip on the organization has steadily eroded over the past decade. As economic populist candidates demonstrate their ability to build broad coalitions and win competitive primary contests, the ultimate direction and identity of the Democratic Party will no longer be dictated by establishment consultants, but decided directly by the electorate.

Nolan Higdon is an author, political analyst, Media Research Fellow at the Park School for Independent Media at Ithaca College, and Merrill College Faculty Fellow & Lecturer in the Education Department at the University of California, Santa Cruz. His work focuses on the intersections of politics, media, technology, and education. A prominent voice in media criticism, he is a columnist for the Gaslight Gazette on Substack, co-host of The Disinfo Detox podcast, co-host of Just Ask the Press, a KTVU political analyst and national judge for Project Censored.

Higdon has authored numerous books including United States of Distraction: Media Manipulation in Post-Truth America (And What We Can Do About It) (2019); The Anatomy of Fake News: A Critical News Literacy Education(2020); Let’s Agree to Disagree: A Critical Thinking Guide to Communication, Conflict Management, and Critical Media Literacy (2022);The Podcaster’s Dilemma: Decolonizing Podcasters in the Era of Surveillance Capitalism (2022); The Media and Me: A Guide To Critical Media Literacy For Young People (2022); Surveillance Education: Navigating the conspicuous absence of privacy in schools(2025); and MAGAcademy: How Corporatism Paved the Way for the Hostile Takeover of Higher Ed (2026)

You can also make a donation to our PayPal or subscribe to our Patreon.

Please share this story and help us grow our network!