Adam Bonica and Jake Grumbach are right: moderation doesn’t win elections for Democrats. The problem runs far deeper, however, than assessing what the correct messaging direction is for candidates.

Moderation is often named in the conversation as a vague and nebulous strategy that sits outside questions of values. We’re led by much of the punditry class to see it as a strategic move for candidates, nothing that serious. In reality, moderation is the centuries-old project of asking the marginalized to absorb harm with the promise that one day, maybe, our conditions will be addressed, when it’s “feasible.” Moderation is the choice to let the hits continue against Black and Brown people, immigrants, queer people, and everyone else outside the elite donor class. It is an oppressive discipline enforced by big-money gatekeepers that keeps our politics in a stranglehold, and it is itself the problem candidates must run to solve, not a tactic to get elected.

Understandably, identifying how Democrats can fight authoritarianism is prominent in the directional debates raging within the party. Often within this discourse you see the idea that this is some sort of new threat. Let’s be real—marginalized people in America have known authoritarian conditions since colonization. As we face down a fascist president, Black people are still contending with the lasting consequences of the extreme and ultimate authoritarianism that is chattel slavery. We are not yet at freedom. Authoritarian control is not something we fear emerging; it is our present condition. We are surveilled, we are policed, and we are incarcerated. Labels of “domestic terrorism” are not new to us—in Ferguson, the FBI called us “black identity extremists.” For many in the elite class, politics is an exercise in the abstract. For marginalized peoples, it is an exercise in survival.

We do not have a choice but to fight in every arena. Remedying the permanent authoritarian conditions we face, and beating back the emergent fascism that is this administration, will not be achieved with mealy-mouthed half-measures and pandering. It will be achieved by the kind of bold policies that institutionalize our humanity. That’s Medicare for All, it’s decarceration, it’s abolishing ICE, it’s reparations—it is all the things we are asked to sacrifice for moderation.

Jettisoning the possibility of breaking the chains that keep most Americans unfree is obviously an unjust “electoral strategy” on its face, but it is also a request made of us within a framework of deceit. We are lectured about electability and swing voters, and as Bonica and Grumbach point out, this is crap. So, why? What drives our leaders to all be so in sync with this lie?

The answer is money. Moderation is as much about that as it is about cowardice and betrayal. It is repeated endlessly that Democrats are the party of the working class, zealous advocates of Black and Brown people and every oppressed group in America. We know that elections are won today by mobilizing, that persuasion is not about triangulation but about moving people to your platform with authentic connection. But even though this is how elections are won, it is not how big-money donors, corporate PACs, and genocidal lobbies are cultivated as patrons. Moderation is a perfect strategy to appeal to Wall Street, weapons manufacturers, Big Pharma, AIPAC, and everyone with a vested interest in keeping marginalized people down and enriching the billionaire class. This is why we are told so relentlessly, by every organ of the elite, that we must moderate.

Turnout is not down for Democrats because we failed to concoct the perfect poll-tested panderous potion. It is down because we have fundamentally betrayed the trust of those we proclaim to serve. If we want to activate our people, we must champion their issues. Along the way, our authenticity and our commitment to dismantling harmful systems will bring unexpected voters into the coalition. We need teachers, janitors, and nurses to run for office challenging the conditions that make life a daily struggle for many Americans. This means running while critiquing militarism, carceral power, and racial capitalism. But with corrupt money as the primary funding source for Democrats, those candidates will find themselves starved of resources, shut out, and our coalition will shrink. We just can’t afford that. To prevent it, Democrats must break their bonds with groups like AIPAC, all Democratic candidates must refuse corporate PAC dollars, and we must end dependence on funds from the ultra-wealthy.

I know this well. I stood up against a genocide and faced a torrent of spending from AIPAC and its allies, the cryptocurrency industry, big real estate, and a list of corporate PACs that could put any K Street client list to shame. The Democratic Party was not built institutionally to support people like me—and as a result, voices like mine were cast off in 2024. We now all live in the consequences of prioritizing big money over cultivating bold leadership. Not only did we lose because we couldn’t motivate our base; we now face a lack of leaders willing to fight fascism with the fervor the moment demands in Washington. If we are to build a democracy in this country and defeat this regime and the systems that created it, we must elect people willing to confront oligarchy and state violence together by responding to that dastardly duo with a serious alternate vision for our country that inspires and motivates.

If our goal is to maintain access to caviar and cocktails in stuffy Washington rooms for elites, by all means, we should moderate. Here in St. Louis, we’ve long known what those rooms mean—nothing better symbolizes them than the long run of the Veiled Prophet Parade. If we’re serious not just about winning elections but governing to change lives and build a lasting coalition of the multiracial working class, let’s rip off the moderate veil that covers the prophets of greed, end the reign of big money, and try standing for something real.