The Democratic Partys public face has shifted so dramatically in recent years that figures once branded as its radical wing now look almost restrained by comparison.
Not so long ago, many on the Right regarded Rep. Ilhan Omar, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Sen. Bernie Sanders, and the self-described democratic socialists as the outer edge of the Democratic coalition. Those were, in retrospect, relatively restrained days: they trafficked in anti-Israel rhetoric and flirted with antisemitic tropes, but none of them were openly calling for the outright murder of anyone, and their antisemitism turns out to be pretty tame in comparison to what is becoming mainstream in the Democratic Party. As reported by Hot Air, as far as we know, none has flirted with Nazism out of hatred for Jews, and Omar was at least relatively circumspect in her support for Hamas' military tactics of suicide bombings and raping civilians.
The new vanguard of the Left is not merely radical on policy; it is increasingly comfortable with open praise of terrorism, casual talk of political violence, and even indulgence of Nazi imagery when it appears on the right kind of candidate. Commentators such as Ezra Klein have long served as translators of progressive extremism for affluent liberals, smoothing the edges of rhetoric that would otherwise repel mainstream voters. Ezra Kleins reason for existing is to dissemble on behalf of the worst tendencies of progressive politics, one critic observed, adding that leftists say crazy, off putting stuff and radiate malevolence and Klein tries to repackage it in a more palatable way for his credulous, affluent audience.
The descent did not happen overnight, but the slope was steep and predictable. Of course, the slope was already slippery when they went down it, the writer notes, tracing a very short slip from Bernie Sanders to AOC, to Ilhan Omar, to Zohran Mamdani, to Hasan Piker, and Graham Platner. That slide, he argues, was not an accident but the logical end point of a movement that increasingly valorizes revolutionary politics: the slip was inevitable, as is usually the case with slippery slopes, which always seem to lead to their logical conclusion: the bottom.
The new icons of the activist Left are not obscure fringe figures; they are media darlings and rising political stars. Hasan Piker, a prominent leftist streamer and Democratic surrogate, has become notorious for his apologetics for Hamas and his explicit endorsement of violence. As CNNs Dana Bash put it, Hasan Piker is excusing sexual violence by Hamas terrorists. He also claims Hamas is, quote, 'a thousand times better than Israel.' Hamas is a designated terror organization, not just by the U.S., but by the EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.
Yet this is the man whom elite institutions now treat as a serious voice on politics and morality. I have written about both Hasan Piker and Graham Platner because they are not outliers, but the center of gravity in the Democratic Party, the author explains, arguing that the partys base has moved decisively in their direction. Democrats who once thought of Barack Obama as a centrist may not be thrilled with this trajectory, but Democrats from 10 years ago, who thought that Barack Obama was a centrist and who still think of themselves as Obama Democrats, may not love the new direction of their party, but they are reconciled to it. We know that because they say so, and because they follow up with their votes.
The case of Graham Platner, the Democratic Senate candidate in Maine, has become a revealing test of what the modern Left is willing to excuse. Platners now-infamous SS Totenkopf tattooa symbol associated with Nazi death squadswould once have been disqualifying in any mainstream party. Instead, prominent Democrats are bending over backwards to rationalize it, including Rahm Emanuels own political circle: Rahm's Jewish grandparents are surely rolling over in their graves listening to him explain why you should vote for the guy with a Nazi tattoo over a moderate Republican who isn't an antisemite, because, maybe then the party will think I'm the good Jew when I run for President.
The normalization of Hasan Piker within elite liberal circles is equally telling. Hasan Piker was invited by The New York Times to share his reflections on the assassination of Charlie Kirk, as if a man who regularly calls for the murder of people he dislikes, including Senators, landlords, capitalists in general, and innocent health care executives, were best equipped to lecture us on political violence. A resurfaced clip underscores the point: ??Remember when Democrat spokesperson Hasan Piker who campaigned with Abdul El-Sayed called to MURDER @ScottforFlorida? Democrats are shamelessly encouraging their base to use violence against conservatives.
Despite this record, Piker is not being shunned; he is being elevated. He is now a regular on their pages and podcasts, opining on these matters, and a feature at campaign events for Democrats. Platner, similarly, is not being abandoned but embraced, and the controversy over his tattoo has become less about his personal history than about the moral collapse of those defending him. The Platner tattoo story isnt about Platner. It's about the people who spent years calling everyone on the Right a Nazi for the slightest association, only to line up like rank-and-file partisans behind a Democratic Senate candidate who wore a literal SS Totenkopf tattoo for 18
Progressive pundits are now openly minimizing the significance of a Nazi emblem that once would have ended a political career. Matt Yglesias will give high-minded explanations for why a Nazi tattooan SS Totenkopf of all thingsis no big deal at all. One critic captured the absurdity of this rationalization: Love this. I'm not worried that he might support an ideology that murdered 10 million because he actually supports an ideology that killed 100 million. Good reason to support him, I guess.
The intellectual gymnastics required to defend Platner have produced some astonishing public statements. What is the specific worry a voter is supposed to have about this man with an SS tattoo on his chest is one of the most amazing things Ive ever read, one commentator remarked, highlighting how far the goalposts have been moved. The author himself is careful to say, I don't believe that Platner is a literal Nazi, but rather a man attracted to violent and extremists of all kinds, and ideologically more a communist. The problem, he insists, is not whether Platner is a card-carrying Nazi but that he is an antisemite, believes that violence is the answer, trains Antifa in violent tactics, including the use of guns, and Democrats love the guy so much that they dumped one of the most popular progressive governors out there to nominate him. He praised Hamas, which thrilled Hasan Piker, and the entire Democratic Party is rallying around him.
Even self-styled Never Trump or centrist liberals are now drawing lines so far to the Left that only explicit genocide would trouble them. Tim Miller is all Platners current antisemitism is fine, get back to me when he wants to gas Jews This tweet is fvcked up, one critic wrote, appalled at the moral threshold being set. The Democratic Party is rallying around Platner, and even Chuck Schumer has bowed to the inevitable, the author notes, arguing that party leaders understand where their voters now are. That's because they know that their base is now Platner's fans, and Piker's fans, and that their less radical voters will still come out to vote for literal communists who support violent revolutions. It is the Jay Jones lesson.
The double standard is impossible to miss for anyone who remembers how the media treated conservatives over far more tenuous associations. All the Dems falling over themselves to offer excuses for Nazi-tattoo guy would be screeching in rage if he was a Republican. The hypocrisy and lack of intellectual honesty is stunning. Not so long ago, Trump holding a rally at Madison Square Garden and Elon Musk waving to the crowd were proof positive that they were outside the bounds of reasonable politics, and Fox host Pete Hegseths Christian Deus Vult tattoo was treated as evidence of extremism.
The contrast is stark. When Pete Hegseth was going through is confirmation hearing, Elizabeth Warren wrote an entire letter about how his Deus Vult tattoo made him a right wing extremist unfit for service. She just endorsed the guy with the Nazi tattoo. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who once was in meltdown mode likening Elon to a Nazi, now has no qualms about standing beside a man with an actual Nazi deaths head on his body: Guy with an actual Nazi death camp tattoo? No problem. Campaigning with him tomorrow.
The message from the Democratic establishment is unmistakable: symbols that were once treated as beyond the pale are now negotiable, so long as the wearer is on the Left. But a Totenkopf is no big deal. He's our guy. We love him. The authors core argument is not merely that Democrats are hypocriticalthough he concedes that of course they are, as are many politiciansbut that their hypocrisy is uniquely corrosive because it is wrapped in claims of moral superiority: To a certain extent, all politicians are, although Democrats rely more on their presumed virtue and compassion than Republicans, so it grates more.
Meanwhile, Hasan Piker continues to articulate views that would have been disqualifying for any mainstream figure just a few years ago. In one exchange, Jon Favreau asks him directly, When you say Hamas is a thousand times better, do you mean that? Piker does not hedge: I do mean it I would vote for Hamas over Israel every single time.
The problem, the author stresses, is not isolated bad actors but a party apparatus increasingly comfortable with their extremism. It's that Democrats are embracing the extremism of the left, excusing the very worst people, inciting the violence both with their language and their justification of it by embracing people like Platner and Piker. What began with the rationalization of riots in 2020 has now evolved into the open embrace of figures like Jay Jones, Hasan Piker, Luigi Mangione, and Graham Platner.
The medias role in this shift cannot be ignored. We went from outrage over the OK hand gesture and Pete Hegseths tattoo to the actual Nazi SS tattoo being no big deal. Remarkable media shift, highlighting yet again how in the pocket of the Left the press corps is. When Democrats and their allies celebrate political assassinations or fantasize about the death of Donald Trump, many Americans want to believe it is a fringe phenomenon. When you see Democrats celebrating assassinations and lamenting that Trump is still alive, it's tempting to think it is a small minority online. And, to be sure, most Democrats will not openly opine on TikTok about it.
Yet the professional status of many of those voicing such sentiments suggests something deeper. But the fact that it is doctors, nurses, and teachers doing it so frequently tells you that it is not exactly out of bounds behind closed doors, and the fact that Hasan Piker and Graham Platner are rising stars tells you that Democratic Party voters are happy to embrace those who do. One viral clip captured Pikers casual talk about the possible death of a president: SICK! 2025: Hasan Piker at the gym with Michigan Democrat Senate Candidate Abdul El-Sayed says he had a productive day talking about Trump potentially dying.
The electoral implications are already visible. Graham Platner is becoming the standard-bearer for the Democrats in Maine, and Abdul El-Sayid is on the way to being one in Michigan. This tells you where the Democrats are. Platner himself is being marketed in soft-focus, populist terms: Maine, lets send an oyster farmer to the U.S. Senateand kick out Susan Collins.
The author warns that the real story is not about a handful of radicals but about the willingness of self-described moderates to fall in line. That moderate Democrats will vote for themand they willtells you where they are. This is not about policy disagreements; it's about embracing a violent and hateful style of politics, justifying it, as all totalitarians do, with an appeal to virtue. The rhetoric that undergirds this shift is explicitly revolutionary and racialized, as Piker himself makes clear: Hasan Piker: America is, in its foundation, a white supremacist country. This is very frustrating for Republicans to hear, this is even frustrating for liberals to hear sometimes, but its just the truth.
Pikers ideological commitments are not hidden; they are flaunted. Hasan Piker just tweeted out photos of him reading Lenin's What Is to Be Done? The whole point is the revolution, and Democrats seem fine with that. Rather than condemning this open flirtation with Leninist vanguardism and violent revolution, the nations leading liberal institutions are giving him a megaphone. The New York Times can't condemn this? Instead, they share his opinions on their pages and podcasts, while Obama's team platforms him.
The alignment is now unmistakable: Obama, The New York Times, Ezra Klein, the Senate Democrats, and presidential candidates are all endorsing this, and Democratic voters are taking it in stride. All of this, the Left insists, is justified as a necessary response to supposedly Nazi Republicans: Because, somehow, they claim this is how to fight the Nazi Republicans.
For conservatives, the pattern is clear and deeply troubling: a party that once claimed to stand for tolerance and pluralism is increasingly defined by its indulgence of antisemitism, its flirtation with political violence, and its willingness to excuse even Nazi iconography when it appears on its own candidates. The question is no longer whether a few radicals on the fringe are saying outrageous things online, but whether the Democratic Party and its institutional allies have decided that such extremism is an acceptable price for ideological purity and electoral power.
Login