“New Jargon Just Dropped”

Progressives accuse center-left Democrats of “reactionary centrism” to write off what they don’t want to hear.

In a recent piece for New York Magazine, Jonathan Chait chronicles the rise of the term “reactionary centrism,” which he describes as “the left’s hot new insult for liberals”:

The long history of factional warfare between the left and center-left has produced an array of epithets, usually directed by the former against the latter: social fascist (the Comintern’s insult for social democrats who opposed communism), Cold War liberal, corporate liberal, and neoliberal (a term embraced by a handful of moderate liberals and used as an insult against a great many more), to name a few.

As the sting of an insult wears off, new ones must come along to replace them. Recently, a new bit of jargon has taken hold: “reactionary centrist.”

In Chait’s telling, “reactionary centrism” was first introduced in a 2018 essay by the progressive activist Aaron Huertas but has since been parroted by other pundits on the far-left, including Jeet Heer, Michael Hobbes, and Thomas Zimmer.

These far-left commentators have their own working definitions of the term (“people who claim to be moderate, in the middle, while always punching left”), but more telling is the way it’s actually used in the discourse. As Chait notes:

Very few of these “reactionary centrists” always or even usually criticize the left. The actual standard, and the term’s most commonly applied usage, is an insult for liberals who sometimes criticize the left.

He continues:

A related version of this argument demands that liberals restrain their criticism of the left rather than engage in “left-bashing that empowers actual enemies of free speech.” None of these critics accept any such limits on their criticism of the liberals. It is a one-sided demand: The liberals must abstain from criticizing the left — or criticize only in the most respectful terms — because uninhibited attacks on the left help the right. 

Accusations of “reactionary centrism” have been lobbed at many on the pragmatic center-left (who have much in common with progressives!), including Chait himself, Matt Yglesias, the New York Times Editorial Board, and “many flying the ‘popularist’ banner”.

In other words, the term has become a catch-all label used by some on the far-left to write off critiques they find inconvenient — especially when those critiques are coming from those on their own side of the aisle.

---

---

What should center-left pragmatists charged with “reactionary centrism” make of it?

One justifiable reaction would be that “reactionary centrism” is a made-up phrase for something alternately normal and imagined, conceived of in bad faith by people who want to argue on Twitter.

Another way to look at it would be to explore why center-left Democrats critique the far-left.

The reality is that pragmatic political practitioners do spend time “punching left” — but such criticism is usually rooted in an authentic, reality-based view of policy and politics. When those on the center-left critique the far-left, they do so with a focus on effective government, winning power — and, yes, political reality in the bothsidesism-infested media environment. 

It is well understood by everyone from the center-right to the far-left that the radical right-wing (which has taken over the core machinery of today’s GOP) poses an existential threat to our democracy — and is diametrically opposed to American progress. Some of the brightest minds across politics, media, and civil society spend gobs of time and energy drawing attention to and criticizing the Republican Party’s authoritarian faction. This line of critique is well accounted for (rightfully)!

But center-left moderates “punch left” because there isn’t nearly enough reflection by those who claim to want to deliver lasting progress on what it takes to actually win the swing races that decide whether Democrats hold power or cede it to authoritarian Republicans.

Year after year, cycle after cycle, the far-left has shown a brazen tendency to deny everything from political science research to real-world election outcomes to everyday common sense. With their heads in the sand, the far-left has opted to act in a disruptive, “move fast and break things” manner that has jeopardized Democrats’ ability to compete and win at a time when winning has never been so plainly important.

In most cases, “punching left” could also be called “communicating reality”. Some examples:

• Brand-differentiated moderates overperformed in 2022 and blunted the impact of the red wave. Meanwhile, every member of the “Squad” underperformed.

• Not only has the far-left never flipped a seat from red to blue, but the only Justice Democrats-backed candidate to run in a swing district in 2020 lost on a ticket Joe Biden won handily.

• Similarly in 2022, the far-left primaried a moderate Democratic incumbent and then lost in a district that broke for Biden by nine points just two years earlier.

Progressives might not want to acknowledge this painful track record, but Democrats cannot afford to ignore these important real-world benchmarks of what wins and what loses. We’ve written before about how it’s best not to correct your enemy when they’re making a mistake — but it’s critical to correct your allies.

This is reality. This is why center-left pragmatists critique the far-left.

---

The solution remains the same: pragmatists must organize to win.

The far-left has built a lucrative and highly energetic ecosystem by punching Republicans and caricaturing moderate Democrats. That’s their prerogative — leftists gonna leftist.

But the job of pragmatic, mainstream Democrats is to offer an alternative in the marketplace that addresses what the far-left has demonstrated it won’t: that their flashy, ideological approach underperforms while moderation and big-tent tactics overperform.

This kind of truth-telling from the center-left may be met with charges of “reactionary centrism” from those who can’t stand to hear it and, as Chait notes, that may well be the point:

“One cannot help but suspect the point of these rules is winning intra-left factional conflicts, not national elections.”

Try as they might, the far-left doesn’t get to have a monopoly on which way the punching goes in the Democratic Party. Popularists/moderates should debate less and organize more to punch back in the direction of beating Republicans and winning majorities.

If the center-left doesn’t critique the far-left from the middle, Republicans will be alone in that ring and Democrats will suffer as a result. The next time you see a lefty on Twitter call a moderate Democrat a “reactionary centrist,” take it with a grain of salt.

---