The Futile Fight for Commonsense Liberalism

By Lauren Veldhuizen

Monday, July 20, 2026

 

The Democratic Party has long thrown common sense out the window to appease progressive ideology. In the process, the party poisoned the morale of much of its voter base, leaving them isolated, disillusioned, and ripe for Republican capture.

 

To fix this, traditional Democrats are suggesting that the party go back to common sense with suggestions that sound almost — dare I say — conservative. Such an antidote is doomed to fail.

 

An essay titled “If the Democrats Actually Want to Win, This is What They Have to Do” was published in the New York Times last week by longtime liberal journalist Thomas Edsall. He is what you might call an “establishment Democrat.” He champions issues of a more traditional Democratic nature, such as economic and racial inequality, and identifies less with the progressive identity politics that much of the left now espouses.

 

In the essay, Edsall diagnoses the ills of the Democratic Party using what I call “commonsense liberalism,” citing immigration, urban disorder, and transgenderism as the three main issues that “serve to reinforce the perception that Democrats are willing to sacrifice the interests of the working and middle classes in favor of special interest constituencies.” He refers to these ills as the party’s “liabilities.” Edsall argues that these liabilities are the reason that once reliably Democrat working-class votes are now swing votes.

 

To cure these ills, Edsall offers commonsense concessions such as Democrats actually enforcing immigration law, aggressively prosecuting violent crime, and recognizing that there are, in fact, two biological sexes: men and women. Other “planks” of the new-and-improved platform include a commitment to free speech and a free market and a rejection of cancel culture and socialism.

 

As much sense as these concessions make, they are futile because the identity of the party has become synonymous with progressive politics. For this new platform to gain any traction, the ideological entrenchment of the progressive left would need to be entirely divorced from the traditional Democratic Party; Edsall refers to this as a necessary “ideological exorcism.” While such an exorcism might rid the party of its radical leanings, it would also leave it limp and lifeless without a united voting base.

 

Even if some Democrats wanted to pivot toward the center, the party’s internal makeup, mechanisms, and incentives make detaching liberalism from progressivism extremely difficult, if not impossible. A recent poll on  political typology conducted by Pew Research Center found that “Leftward Progressives,” a group within the Democratic Party that holds the most progressive views across most issue areas, are deeply dissatisfied with the Democratic Party, highly politically engaged, and much farther left than other Democratic factions on issues such as transgenderism and democratic socialism. Progressive Democrats are also highly organized, well-funded, and have dominated in recent primaries and local party politics, giving them a large amount of influence despite making up such a small percentage of the Democratic Party,

 

Thus, the progressive ideological capture of the Democratic Party overrides any reasonable appeals from within the party to limit such extremism. The progressive party members who determine nominations, organize volunteers, provide endorsements, create grassroots campaigns, and perform well in Democratic primaries are not necessarily representative of the party’s broader and more moderate electorate, leaving the party open to political extremism.

 

Because of this, seemingly “moderate” Democrats who come to power often end up being progressive in policy. History has shown that moderate positions, while they poll better nationally, are politically risky inside of a Democratic primary. This means that extreme, progressive candidates are often elected into positions of power during primaries. However, to win against Republicans and gain swing votes in general elections, those extreme positions must be masked as “moderate.” Take Texas state representative and Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico, for example. In theory, he presents himself as a moderate to appeal to more center-left and moderate voters in a traditionally red state. But in practice, Talarico is anything but.

 

Ultimately, it is a lose-lose situation for Democrats: Either run on a platform of commonsense liberalism and win back swing and “left-out” Democratic votes while isolating more extreme progressives, or appease the ideologues at the risk of moderate Democrat swing votes going in favor of Republicans. Traditional Democrats made their bed with progressive bedfellows; now they must lie in it.

 

This might, however, present an opportunity for conservatives to reposition themselves in the public mind and gain center-left voters who are simply seeking a logical approach to politics. A post-MAGA Republican Party could make major inroads with some swing voters once divorced from Trump’s divisive personality and married to practical policies. As the Trump administration enters its final two years, Republicans should consider if and how they are going to sell their platforms to disillusioned liberals; it seems like a bit of common sense is all it would take.