The recent very public debate between newly elected Democratic National Committee (DNC) Vice Chair David Hogg and his (faux) outraged critics reignited a longstanding conflict between corporate Democrats and the progressive party base. To primary or not to primary.

Corporatists like like James Carville, Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, Hakeem Jeffries, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz keep scolding progressives for daring to challenge establishment incumbents. Yet, when it suits their interests, these same figures support, fund, or wink at primary challenges against progressive incumbents. It’s rank hypocrisy; and it’s a pattern too glaring to ignore.

Anyone who still wonders how Trump could win two presidential elections—and bring with him “MAGA-jorities” in the House and Senate—need only consider this. Corporate Democratic Party insiders throttle the voices of the party base, then they blame the base when so many voters stay home or vote for third party alternatives.

Corporate Democrats scold progressives about “party unity,” but only when it protects their power. Whenever progressives threaten their grip, all their rhetoric about loyalty, pragmatism, and “stopping Republicans” evaporates like smoke from the old smoke filled rooms.

How Corporate Democrats Sabotage Progressives

Rather than listen to the base, corporate Democrats try to rig primaries, force out progressives, punish those who advise progressives, and even oust progressives from office. James Carville is a prime example. He’s spent the Trump era, like Trump, ranting about “wokeness.” Rather than take any responsibility for his failures, he accuses us of ruining the Democratic Party.

He routinely trashes progressive challengers, arguing that primaries weaken the party and distract from fighting Republicans. Yet Carville had no problem openly supporting a primary challenge against progressive Rep. Ilhan Omar in Minnesota’s 5th District in 2020.

He also praised Antone Melton-Meaux, a corporate lawyer heavily funded by out-of-state dark money PACs whose entire campaign centered around “bringing civility” back to Congress (read: sidelining progressives like Omar who dare criticize corporate power and U.S. foreign policy). His hypocrisy alienates everyone born since he last ran a successful campaign—more than 30 years ago–as well as millions of other voters who know better.

Corporatists’ hypocrisy is institutionalized. In 2019, progressive groups like Progressive Democrats of America supported primary challenges against establishment “Democrats” like Dan Lipinski. These “corpocrats” oppose fundamental policies our base holds dear including abortion rights. Rather than join with us, elected Democratic Party leaders scolded us publicly. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) went so far as to blacklist vendors who worked with primary challengers.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi endorsed Rep. Henry Cuellar—an anti-gun safety, anti-choice extremist from Texas. She undermined PDA endorsed progressive challenger Jessica Cisneros, not once but twice. Cuellar was under FBI investigation for corruption at the time of Pelosi’s endorsement. Cisneros—a champion on issues that matter most to most Democrats—only narrowly lost in her second primary.

Hakeem Jeffries, current House Minority Leader, is another loud opponent of primary challenges. But only sometimes. In 2020, he warned against challenging sitting Democratic members, framing it as divisive and counterproductive. In 2022, Jeffries helped found “Team Blue PAC,” an explicitly anti-progressive group designed to protect establishment incumbents and defeat progressive challengers. In reality, the corporatists’ definition of “protecting incumbents” is strangely narrow. Jeffries did nothing to protect progressive incumbents like Jamal Bowman.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, during her time as DNC Chair, notoriously rigged the 2016 primary process in favor of Hillary Clinton. She took to the airwaves to deny it, but behind the scenes she sabotaged Bernie Sanders. Leaked emails revealed that she ran the DNC as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Clinton campaign, silencing millions among the Democratic Party base.

Wasserman Schultz’s actions were so indefensible that she was forced to resign in disgrace—only to immediately be hired by the Clinton campaign. Her behavior set the tone for years of establishment sabotage against progressive candidates. As the Associated Press reported:

[Bernie] Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver said Saturday that the emails show “what many of us have known for some time, that there were certainly people at the DNC who were actively helping the Clinton effort and trying to hurt Bernie Sanders’ campaign.”

 

Weaver said the emails showed that the DNC’s “senior staffers” attacked Sanders about his religion and had roles in “planting negative stories about him with religious leaders in various states.”

 

Weaver also said the emails may make it harder to promote party unity as Sanders’ supporters mix with Clinton’s majority at the Philadelphia convention. [This even after] Sanders endorsed Clinton.

We all know how that turned out.

See: Hacked emails show Democratic party hostility to Sanders, July 23, 2016

The Double Standard in Primary Battles

When a corporatist incumbent faces a progressive challenger, we hear cries of “disunity,” “recklessness,” and “vanity projects.” But when a progressive incumbent is the target? Suddenly, those claims disappear. Here are some egregious examples:

• Ilhan Omar (MN-5): James Carville and other corporatists supported Melton-Meaux in 2020, hoping to unseat Omar for her ethical, well-founded analysis of lawless U.S. foreign policy and corrupting corporate influence.
• Cori Bush (MO-1): Democratic establishment figures masterminded efforts to oust an exciting and inspiring grassroots woman of color. Her courageous stances on policing and healthcare made corporatists uncomfortable.
• Jamaal Bowman (NY-16): After he criticized U.S. aid to Israel and supported conditioning aid based on human rights, corporatists and dark money donors openly plotted to oust him.

How damaging is this hypocrisy to the Democratic Party? Kamala Harris and her advisors’ decided to reject these candidates and their highly ethical standards—positions that the Democratic base widely supports. Instead of running on these popular issues, they ceded them to Trump and the Republicans.

Instead of running to fire up the progressive base, the Harris-Walz campaign embraced neoliberal and neoconservative figures and positions that many Americans rightfully distrust and disdain. When our candidates align with the people, not the corporatist oligarchs, we win.

We would have defeated Trump if we’d run to reverse the damage caused by Reagan, both Bushes, and Trump. Instead, we lost to Trump unleashing him and his sycophants now dominating the House and Senate. Albeit by the narrowest of margins. Too many of Democratic candidates undermine our ability to enact policies people want and need. They must be challenged and replaced if they stubbornly continue to sell out to Trump and Republicans.

Hindering The Necessary Renewal of the Democratic Party

When popular progressives challenge sell-outs, the establishment claims primaries are unacceptable. These insiders raise obscene amounts of money from right wing extremists in order to sabotage Democratic electoral prospects.

Examples of corporatists sabotaging progressives:

• Marie Newman vs. Dan Lipinski (IL-3): Newman challenged Lipinski, an anti-choice, anti-LGBTQ “Democrat.” The DCCC blacklisted any consultant who worked with her campaign—a tactic implemented under DCCC chairs like Cheri Bustos and Sean Patrick Maloney to freeze out progressives.
• Jessica Cisneros vs. Henry Cuellar (TX-28): Pelosi, former House Whip James Clyburn, and other leading elected Democrats either endorsed Cuellar or remained silent, despite his anti-choice record and legal troubles.
• Nina Turner vs. Shontel Brown (OH-11): When Turner ran a grassroots, progressive campaign to fill Marcia Fudge’s vacated seat, the Democratic establishment flooded Brown with money and endorsements.

This dark money funded duplicity reveals something important: it’s not about “party unity.” It’s about protecting corporate power inside the Democratic Party. Progressives like Ilhan Omar, Cori Bush, and Jamaal Bowman represent a genuine threat to the cozy relationships corporate Democrats have with oligarchs, their lobbyists, Wall Street, private equity, and defense contractors.

It’s About Power, Not Principles. These incumbents don’t fear Republicans nearly as much as they fear progressives who won’t play the big money corporate  game. When corporate Democrats call for “unity,” they mean “unity behind the status quo.” When they decry “purity tests,” they mean “don’t expect me to fight for working people if it risks my donors’ displeasure.”

How Corporate Media Fuels the Hypocrisy

Corporate media outlets routinely reinforce this double standard, branding progressive challenges as “divisive” while praising challenges to progressives as “healthy competition.” The New York Times, Politico, and CNN all ran sympathetic profiles of Antone Melton-Meaux, portraying him as a unifying figure without seriously interrogating the dark money behind his campaign. Yet when Marie Newman challenged Lipinski, the same outlets framed her as a dangerous insurgent risking a Republican win.

Letting corporate Democrats continue this double standard unchecked means the party will continue turning a dead ear to the base—and therefor remain stuck in a dead end. Unless and until Democrats side with working people, renters, students, and anyone outside the elite donor class, demagogues like Trump will continue their reign of terror. Progressives who speak for the party base aren’t the problem. Complicit corporate GOP Lite “Semicrats” are.

Primary challenges represent democracy in action. Progressives are striving to democratize the Democratic Party, over the howls of protests from corporatists. We assert the the party should not belong to a self-selecting club of insiders. If progressives believe a sitting Democrat does not represent their district’s interests, we should absolutely run and support challengers.

The establishment knows this. That’s why they’re trying so hard to gaslight voters into believing primaries are somehow immoral—but only when a progressive is running to replace dead wood. A Democratic Party dominated by corporate donors will never deliver Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, the 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights, or the rest of the agenda we must enact. Only a party rooted in grassroots energy and accountability can.

Building a Movement Beyond Corporate Control

Progressives should unapologetically support primarying any Democrat who sides with Trump by putting corporations over people. We can always expect backlash from party elites, but we shouldn’t be daunted. We must build the independent infrastructure—grassroots organizations, independent media—essential to overcoming these establishment attacks.

Voters recognize the bad-faith double standard at work when corporate Democrats call for “unity” while attacking highly popular progressives—incumbents and challengers alike. The corporatists’ goal isn’t unity; it’s obedience. It’s time to stop pretending otherwise. Primary challenges are not the problem. Corporate capture of our political system is.

If we want a Democratic Party that actually fights for healthcare, climate action, worker rights, and racial justice, then we progressives must keep running—and winning—no matter how much the corporatists hypocritically whine about it.

Final Thought: End the Double Standard

The next time you hear a corporate Democrat lecturing about progressive “wokeness,” “divisiveness” or “purity tests,” ask them a simple question: “Why do you only seem to care about unity when your corporate friends are threatened—but not when actual progressives are?” They don’t have a good answer. There isn’t one. And that’s all we need to know.