Critique of ‘Moderate’ Democrats

I generally appreciate David Harsanyi’s critiques from the left, but recently, he made a distinction that I find hard to accept. He lauded politicians with the phrase “Build, baby, build!” and views them as the centralist alternative within the party.

Harsanyi suggested that these figures could lead Democrats back to a more moderate stance. He contrasted them with openly socialist figures like Zoran Mamdani from New York City. His depiction of politicians such as Beshear, Spanberger, Shapiro, and Stein as a sort of “faithful opposition” is something conservatives might embrace.

However, this portrayal falls apart under closer inspection. When it comes to social issues, those assumed to be moderates can often be found aligning closely with the party’s most energetic activists. Beshear, while pragmatic on many matters, actively supports LGBTQ causes across Kentucky. Spanberger, who has been a strong supporter of gender consent issues, backs policies that allow biological males to compete in women’s sports. Likewise, Stein in North Carolina has vetoed multiple bills aimed at curbing LGBTQ rights and countering extreme gender policies.

These aren’t merely peripheral disagreements; they point to deeper realities. The so-called moderates portrayed by Harsanyi and other commentators are not as moderate as they seem. They employ gentle rhetoric to mask the same underlying ideology. Spanberger may come across as a pragmatist, but her views on social issues echo those of more vocal progressives like Tim Walz and Mamdani.

So, why do right-leaning individuals seem to elevate these figures? Well, these Democrats don’t label themselves socialists and, unlike figures such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Omar Fate, they don’t use inflammatory slogans or exhibit the same racial tensions. Yet, the difference is essentially superficial. On issues related to gender and race, these so-called moderates support similar policies.

This misunderstanding illustrates a significant issue on the right. For many years, the Republican establishment has shied away from engaging directly on cultural matters, opting instead to focus on appealing to donors through national defense or deregulation. The ground on marriage and gender rights was conceded long ago, particularly after the Supreme Court ruled on Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, a decision that many conservatives accepted without much opposition. Now, some Republicans are trying to present a smart alternative by pretending these Democrats are “moderate.” They aren’t.

And Democrats are fully aware of this. Advisors from the Clinton era are currently advising their party to adapt the woke language and to focus more on practical issues like housing and infrastructure. Yet, the aim is clear: they want to maintain their core voter bases, such as educated white women and Black urban voters, while also appealing to independents with straightforward economic messages. Figures like Beshear, Stein, and Spanberger understand that their future hinges on this delicate balance.

Republicans need to wake up to this reality. They have no choice but to engage on these issues, whether they like it or not.

In Virginia, the conservative lieutenant governor, Winsome Earle-Sears, supports traditional views on marriage and gender and backs Trump’s immigration policies. Despite Spanberger’s apparent shift toward a more left-leaning agenda, her standing in northern Virginia’s suburbs hasn’t suffered. In fact, her clearer positioning may strengthen her support.

This is something Republicans must not overlook. Spanberger exemplifies how a “moderate” label operates, not as a rejection of cultural radicalism, but as a more palatable way of expressing it. Earle-Sears recognizes the underlying interests at stake. If social issues remain as prominent as they are, Spanberger risks losing her footing. Her best strategy might be to highlight Spanberger’s record to compel voters to confront it.

The dynamics playing out in Virginia mirror the broader cultural battles that are embroiling Trump nationally—conflicts against a cultural left that has entrenched itself within governmental institutions, media outlets, and universities. These confrontations are interconnected. They won’t lessen, and Democrats won’t secure their agenda by pretending to be moderate.

If Republicans cling to that misconception, they’ll face losses not just in governor races or Senate seats; they’ll also forfeit the critical cultural battles, shaping identity and moral values in the nation. These so-called moderate Democrats are not antidotes to radicalism; they are simply instruments to advance it.