Democrats’ Flattery of Their Most Partisan Voters Will Get Them Nowhere

By Noah Rothman

Thursday, November 13, 2025

 

There are surely lazier ways to ingratiate yourself with the most partisan voters in your political faction ahead of, say, a campaign for the presidency than telling them that your party’s biggest problem is that it’s too nice, too deferential to its opponents, too observant of norms and precedents to compete in today’s cutthroat environment. It’s hard to think of any, though.

 

In his effort to raise his profile (and cash) ahead of what’s looking more and more like a bid for the White House in 2028, Senator Chris Murphy (D., Conn.) deployed that sort of obsequious flattery masquerading as a critique of the party he seeks to lead:

 

 

Donald Trump has “exposed himself as a fake populist,” Murphy told the audience at a New Hampshire town hall. What’s needed now is real populism — even revolutionary populism.

 

“The problem is this party has been addicted to incremental change, solutions that aren’t as big as the problems that people face, and it is part of what has made us illegitimate in major parts of this country,” he continued.

 

“How can you say you’re the party of poor people when poor people don’t vote for you?” Murphy asked. The Democrats are unloved today only “because the ideas we have aren’t big enough.”

 

The minimum wage should be higher — much higher. The unions aren’t powerful enough — not because only 10 percent of the private-sector workforce is unionized but because workers are allowed to choose their affiliations. It’s not enough to use Medicare to impose a price-fixing scheme on certain prescription drugs. All drug prices should be set by Washington, and drug manufacturers should be denied the opportunity to advertise their products or derive profit from them.

 

Murphy can insist upon the transfer of all power to the Soviets as much as he likes, but if his problem is with “incremental change,” his grievance is not with his party but the American system of government.

 

The American republic is, very much by design, resistant to radical revisions to the social compact by way of legislation in the absence of overwhelming consensus in its two federal legislative chambers. If revolutionary change is what you want, you’ll have to persuade lawmakers of your vision. Revolutionaries have historically struggled in the persuasion department, which explains why they so regularly resort to violent coups to secure the power they seek.

 

The American Constitution constrains ambition. If Murphy finds those constraints too limiting for his taste, that’s his problem — not his party’s, and certainly not America’s.

 

As sordid as Murphy’s sop to the activist progressive base is, it’s not hard to see its appeal. Everyone wants to be told that their outlook is shared by a secret majority of Americans who are too timid and underrepresented to see their vision realized, and all that stands between them and political victory is a bold-enough champion.

 

Maybe that’s a message that will stand out in what promises to be a crowded field of Democratic presidential aspirants in 2028, but I doubt it. Flattery will get you an audience, but the Democratic voters who want to see their agenda capably stewarded by the next Democratic president will want to hear more from their party’s candidates than a promise to do what the Democratic Party has been doing, but even harder.