The Self-Defeating Politics of the American Left

Bernie Sanders has always been more flawed than many on the left would like. His refusal to call Israel’s actions in Gaza a genocide, along with several of his foreign policy votes over the years, have been disappointing. Bernie's latest mistake was at a "Fight Oligarchy" rally in Nampa, Idaho, where he failed to intervene when police officers removed two protestors that dropped a pro-Palestinian flag behind him. 

It's true, I wish he had just said, “Let them stay. Let the flag stay.” Instead, he allowed the police to remove the protestors and offered this carefully balanced response: 

“I know that this is a sensitive issue, something I am helping leading the effort [on] in Congress, but I do want to say - hold it, hold it - what we have also got to focus on is the crisis facing not only the people in Gaza but the crisis facing the working class of this country.”

Video of the incident has been making the rounds online, with some leftists saying it's time we turn our back on Sanders - that this betrayal is the last straw. 

Ok, so yes, moments like this are disappointing. He should have handled it better, but can we get real for a second? 

Imperfect Allies Aren't Enemies

Sanders has taken more leadership on Gaza than 100% of his colleagues in the Senate, by far. He has introduced multiple resolutions to cut military funding and block arms shipments, pushed back against unconditional U.S. support for Netanyahu's extremist right-wing government, and remained one of the only figures in Congress willing to regularly say anything critical at all. 

Meanwhile, AIPAC is reportedly spending six figures to run ads targeting the Democrats who supported Sanders’s most recent motions to withhold military aid from Israel earlier this month. This is on top of the $100 million they spent during the 2024 election season, which continues to buy them a bipartisan majority in power.

We live in a twilight world where a not-insignificant portion of the left who rightly oppose our government for funding war crimes in Gaza are seemingly aligned with the interests of AIPAC. 

By focusing their energy on condemning the most high-profile Senator to break ranks with the bipartisan AIPAC consensus, they risk isolating the few voices in Congress even attempting to apply pressure. If that strategy continues, pretty soon, instead of 15 Senators standing against the flow of weapons, we’ll have none.

This isn’t hypothetical. We know AIPAC will continue to invest heavily to eliminate those few dissenters. And rather than organize to defend and expand that dissent, parts of the online left are directing their sharpest attacks at the Senator most visibly leading that charge.

At a time when the far-right is mobilizing, democratic institutions are eroding, and the machinery of state violence and repression is expanding—this inward turn is not just counterproductive. It’s a gift to the very forces the left claims to oppose. Tearing down the few legislators resisting the war machine while ignoring the vast majority who are fueling it, serves power far more than it challenges it.

This is not to suggest that Sanders and others like AOC are beyond critique—far from it. But we have to ask: whose agenda does it serve to relentlessly snipe at the most progressive people in power, flawed as they are?

From Outrage to Irrelevance: When Critique Becomes Self-Sabotage

There is a certain faction of the left that thrives on moral outrage—not as a tool for organizing, but as an end in itself. This faction is quick to frame figures like Sanders and AOC as "sellouts" rather than as imperfect allies in the ongoing struggle for power. 

They direct their harshest criticism not at the politicians who unapologetically support war and imperialism, but at the few who are at least willing to challenge it within the constraints of the system. And the result is predictable: instead of building a stronger progressive bloc in Congress, the left ensures that its coalition remains fractured and powerless while far greater evils continue to dominate both majority and minority power.

The fundamental problem with this approach is that it ignores the basic reality of how power works. Right now, in the Senate, there is exactly one Bernie Sanders. If there were 30 senators who shared his politics—or were better—then there would be far greater room to push the Overton window to the left. But that is not the situation we are in. Instead, progressives in office are outnumbered 99 to 1. And when you are that outnumbered, there are strategic decisions to be made about how and when to take a stand. Getting primaried by AIPAC-backed candidates is not a hypothetical concern; it is a well-documented, well-funded operation with a history of destroying progressive campaigns. Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush both lost their seats, in no small part because of this machine. That is the real-world consequence of pushing too hard without the public support to back it up.

None of this means that Sanders, or any progressive in power, is above criticism. But there is a difference between critique aimed at strengthening a movement and the kind that seeks to tear down its most viable and visible representatives. 

There is also a difference between “selling out” (like Sanders endorsing Hillary and Biden) and strategic, long-term power-building. Some on the left seem to believe that political action should be about grand, symbolic gestures—bold stands that may backfire spectacularly, but at least feel uncompromising. Many wish Sanders had run as an independent in 2016 or 2020 when he lost the nomination, for instance. But there is a serious question to ask here: what is more effective? A single act of defiance that leads to political exile or years of sustained work that gradually shifts policy? Sanders could throw himself on the fire, take an unmovable stance, and become completely irrelevant in the process. Or he could do what he has been doing—pushing where he can, compromising where he must, and remaining in a position where he still has influence.

That is not a sellout move; it is a strategic one. He's effectively holding the line until reinforcements arrive. And it is the kind of thinking that the left often fails to embrace.

The Third-Party Mirage

This failure is exacerbated by a certain faction of third-party leftists who insist that engaging with the Democratic Party at all is a form of betrayal. They call it "sheepdogging"—implying that figures like Sanders and AOC exist only to mislead people into thinking change is possible within the system. But what is their alternative? 

Third-party victory rates in the U.S. are abysmal—less than 2% in the House and Senate since 1900—not because the idea of a third party is inherently bad, but because the structural barriers are too immense to ignore. Yet instead of working to build power where it is actually possible, these critics insist that any progressive who plays the game with eyes wide open to the strategic limitations of third-party organizing is corrupt. This mentality does not create stronger movements—it ensures perpetual irrelevance.

If I wanted to sabotage the left, I could think of no better strategy than to aggressively promote President-focused third-party politics. The Green Party has posed virtually no threat to the political establishment for decades, but it continues to absorb energy and attention that might otherwise be used to build real power where change is actually possible. From the perspective of those in power, it's a safe outlet—one that makes no demands on the system because it never gets close enough to contest it.

By focusing the majority of the left's disdain towards progressives trying to transform the Democratic Party, it guarantees that no one better than Sanders ever emerges, because anyone who attempts it will be met with the same cynical dismissal and condemnation. It teaches young activists that engaging with electoral politics is inherently corrupt rather than an essential part of contesting power. And in doing so, it ensures that the political landscape remains dominated by those who have no interest in justice at all.

Getting Serious About Power

The left needs to get serious about power. That means recognizing that politics is not about advancing the perfect candidate but about strategy, strength in numbers, and long-term planning. Electing 50 imperfect Bernie Sanders will be a greater accomplishment than trying to elect 10 of the most radical options and potentially not getting any of them into office. 

If we want to stop losing, we need to stop treating every imperfect ally as an enemy. Because if we continue down this path, we will not just fail to build a better future—we will ensure that those who oppose everything we stand for remain in control.

That does not mean giving progressives in office a free pass. They should be pressured, they should be held accountable, and they should be expected to fight harder. But attacking them as if they are no different from the worst elements in government is not just wrong—it is self-destructive. 

If we treat every progressive leader as disposable, we will find ourselves with no leaders at all. And in their absence, it will not be revolutionaries who take their place, but moderates and reactionaries who will be happy to continue business as usual.