I don't really understand the preference for the insurgency. Given that Matt's policy hobbyhorses are all positive sum "concentrated costs with diffuse benefits" issues, I can see how casting off interest groups increases the chance of success *in the short term*. But does President AOC mean interest groups disappear in a puff of smoke? They'll re-establish inside the insurgent host body and carry on in the new equilibrium. There can only be a handful of populist stars; 99% of congresspeople will still need campaign funds from The Groups. Is all this turmoil just for one big hopeful shot?
There's so much going on here. Neoliberals always have to present themselves as the young men with fresh ideas taking on the establishment, the disruptive entrepreneurs of politics. Clinton and Gore could kinda make this case in that, yes, they were really to the right of the 20th century Dems, which was new, for Dems. But in 2026? Come on. Half of every MY article is just "remember how awesome Obama was?" If you're writing about how you wish the old president were back, you're not anti-establishment! You want an older establishment. How much of this piece is just umbrage that he has to share a party with people who disagree with him on fundamental issues, that his party isn't uncritically united behind more genial less abrasive version of Republican policies. Why is this? Is it because Obama DIDN'T solve all the problems, and we genuinely don't know what to do? That the answer "Obama wasn't pro-business enough. He didn't lecture poor people enough. He didn't shit enough on anyone who pushed for greater redistribution of the enormous wealth generated at the top of his stagnant economy" doesn't make intuitive sense to everyone in the party? Or is it a secret conspiracy to oppress and exclude those who want to enrich the rich?
I agree. Although I dislike most of the insurgent platform, I admire their tenacity and willingness to take risks. They stand for something. The establishment seems to be waiting for power to fall into their lap
A lot of the “progressive establishment” is defined by figures who came out of labor or advocacy and now work within the system. They’re typically more pragmatic than insurgent leftists or professional activists, but their heart and sympathies are with the groups. Or even where they disagree, they’re often highly attuned to the groups’ feelings or sentiments.
The flip side is that a lot of the progressive establishment’s overall bias is still towards getting to yes, and their primary loyalty still is to the party and their colleagues. Their power to set the agenda is typically higher in opposition than in government. A president can set priorities and push. And being the governing party also often forces more engagement with business or other established constituencies. (Both a weakness and a strength for a lot of liberal and progressive establishment types is that they’re fundamentally mediator types.)
Why didn’t this happen under Biden? I think Matt understates how much the first Trump Administration (plus retrospective assessments of the Obama years) really produced a massive party wide consensus on a lot of issues. (Matt himself gave into this!) There was broad agreement towards much higher spending, no “pre-compromising” with moderates or Republicans, aggressive support for labor, pre-distribution, aggressive antitrust etc. So much shaped by the perceived lessons of the Obama years - of excessive fear of deficits, too much leniency towards banks or big business, etc., coupled with a complete disgust with Trump and all his enablers. This meant there really weren’t many influential opponents or much organized internal opposition.
I think the Insurgent Left itself has two subgroups, one of which has greater possibility of public support than the Progressive Establishment and one of which has less. I’ll steal your term and call one of them the Insurgent Left, and I’ll call the other Hardcore Leftists.
On the one hand, you have the Insurgent Left. Members of this group include Zohran Mamdani, AOC since 2025 (with flashes of it since 2023), and Bernie circa 2016 and since 2025. They are unabashedly left wing, but they try to convince people of their policies on the merits. They are also willing to listen to diverse perspectives and compromise when necessary. This group tends to perform at or above expectations.
On the other hand, you have the Hardcore Leftists. Members of this group include AOC and Bernie circa 2018-2022, Francesca Wong before she tried to walk everything back, and AES during the primary. They are also unabashedly left wing, but seem to me to act as though their ideas are self-evidently correct. They are not very willing to compromise, and treat both the Progressive Establishment and Moderates as though they are nearly as bad as MAGA. This group tends to significantly underperform expectations.
If you can’t tell, I think the Insurgent Left is a lot better for the party than the Hardcore Leftists. They’re a bit to my left policy-wise, but they’re so much more willing to engage than the Hardcore Leftists. I might end up arguing with someone in the Insurgent Left, but I don’t feel like I’m going to be bullied if I express a heterodox opinion.
performance pay for teachers sounds good to many a reformist type shit lib. It might work in some places where something clever is launched and some gimmicks keep the kids in school, or perhaps a charismatic principal gets the community invested. Or they pony up for some specialists. But it’s just as likely to not matter at all or encourage teachers to game the system or even cheat. Because in the end, students are people too. They are not always going to be coaxed, manipulated, forced, bedazzled, riveted,
engrossed, threatened whatever into student life.
Things like coming regularly, completing schoolwork, and paying attention are the most
important and if the kid isn’t there, there’s that.
but everything is worth a spin.
Just not grifty gimmicks (i’m talking about most professional development workshops)
The point isn't that rewarding teachers for being good at their job is a magic bullet. The goal is to improve schools on the margin. All those other factors will inevitably have their influence, but school systems should at least try to optimize the factors under their control.
The Insurgent Left has kinda figured out that people can only hold 1-2 thoughts in their mind on politics, so focusing on FREE PALESTINE and M4ALL is smart. Their candidates can just say those secret words and still have the flexibility to bend on other issues like Mamdani is doing. You can see the same thing with Trump - as long as he's all BUILD THE WALL and ANTI-WOKE, the GOP grants him flexibility on economic policy, foreign policy, even abortion.
Meanwhile, the Progressive Establishment, as MY says, is all about coalition management and making everyone happy, which means they kinda stand for nothing in the minds of most voters. Moderates also suffer from this a bit, although you see them coalescing around some sort of Abundance movement, which would be helpful for signaling what they are for.
In Michigan, it seems Abdul El-Sayed can run against Rogers being increasingly pro-MAGA even if El-Sayed is to the left of the electorate. See how that works out. But attacking Rogers as being akin to a KKK cross burning because Rogers was being driven around in an old Ford truck with American flags on it? In a state with Motor City? Come on, people. Focus.
This seems broadly in tension with your post on Monday.
There you seemed to be advocating for Acemogluan institutionalism. But, here, you’re arguing that precise force has created a network of policy demanders incapable of adapting to the moment or prioritizing. Meanwhile, you’re praising the personalism of the insurgents because they allow them to just do things (or at least promise to just do things). Worse, your prescription for the party’s woes: defeat the bad people!
Re progressive Biden staffers, Matt, it would be good to get at least a few examples, even mundane ones:
"The agenda came from the progressive think tanks and the progressive advocacy infrastructure and was driven by the insertion into key roles of personnel who believed that being responsive to progressive advocacy infrastructure was the most important thing."
I have no doubt this is true, but so far I've never seen anyone point to anything concrete.
I love calling it "the Progressive Establishment." Exactly. It's been driving me crazy how so many are saying Platner, El Sayed et al are running against "the Establishment." No! Folks like Bernie, AOC etc *are* part of the Establishment now, and as Matt points out, they form a very important part of the "Democratic Establishment."
In other words, there is no "Establishment." There are instead factions: the Progressive faction, the Moderate faction, and the Insurgent faction.
This will be one hell of a nomination campaign in 2028.
He's not calling Bernie and AOC the progressive establishment. They are insurgents. "Establishment" does not refer to tenure but to their relationship to decision-making power within the party.
The "progressive establishment" refers to normie Dems who, according to Matt, sheepishly triangulate the demands from the network of donor PACs/NGOs ("the groups") who have very progressive policy goals and dole out campaign funds.
"Insurgents" source their power from populism, which gives them greater leverage when interacting with donor groups.
It always drove me crazy to hear Bernie being referred to as “not part of ~The Establishment~” when being a Senator and before that a Mayor is about as Establishment as you can get! I agree with Marc that it’s better to speak of factions or divisions rather than call a member of Congress “not part of the Establishment.”
I don't really understand the preference for the insurgency. Given that Matt's policy hobbyhorses are all positive sum "concentrated costs with diffuse benefits" issues, I can see how casting off interest groups increases the chance of success *in the short term*. But does President AOC mean interest groups disappear in a puff of smoke? They'll re-establish inside the insurgent host body and carry on in the new equilibrium. There can only be a handful of populist stars; 99% of congresspeople will still need campaign funds from The Groups. Is all this turmoil just for one big hopeful shot?
There's so much going on here. Neoliberals always have to present themselves as the young men with fresh ideas taking on the establishment, the disruptive entrepreneurs of politics. Clinton and Gore could kinda make this case in that, yes, they were really to the right of the 20th century Dems, which was new, for Dems. But in 2026? Come on. Half of every MY article is just "remember how awesome Obama was?" If you're writing about how you wish the old president were back, you're not anti-establishment! You want an older establishment. How much of this piece is just umbrage that he has to share a party with people who disagree with him on fundamental issues, that his party isn't uncritically united behind more genial less abrasive version of Republican policies. Why is this? Is it because Obama DIDN'T solve all the problems, and we genuinely don't know what to do? That the answer "Obama wasn't pro-business enough. He didn't lecture poor people enough. He didn't shit enough on anyone who pushed for greater redistribution of the enormous wealth generated at the top of his stagnant economy" doesn't make intuitive sense to everyone in the party? Or is it a secret conspiracy to oppress and exclude those who want to enrich the rich?
I agree. Although I dislike most of the insurgent platform, I admire their tenacity and willingness to take risks. They stand for something. The establishment seems to be waiting for power to fall into their lap
A lot of the “progressive establishment” is defined by figures who came out of labor or advocacy and now work within the system. They’re typically more pragmatic than insurgent leftists or professional activists, but their heart and sympathies are with the groups. Or even where they disagree, they’re often highly attuned to the groups’ feelings or sentiments.
The flip side is that a lot of the progressive establishment’s overall bias is still towards getting to yes, and their primary loyalty still is to the party and their colleagues. Their power to set the agenda is typically higher in opposition than in government. A president can set priorities and push. And being the governing party also often forces more engagement with business or other established constituencies. (Both a weakness and a strength for a lot of liberal and progressive establishment types is that they’re fundamentally mediator types.)
Why didn’t this happen under Biden? I think Matt understates how much the first Trump Administration (plus retrospective assessments of the Obama years) really produced a massive party wide consensus on a lot of issues. (Matt himself gave into this!) There was broad agreement towards much higher spending, no “pre-compromising” with moderates or Republicans, aggressive support for labor, pre-distribution, aggressive antitrust etc. So much shaped by the perceived lessons of the Obama years - of excessive fear of deficits, too much leniency towards banks or big business, etc., coupled with a complete disgust with Trump and all his enablers. This meant there really weren’t many influential opponents or much organized internal opposition.
They should just run as DSA candidates if they hate all the Dems so much. Let’s see how that works out!
By “hate all the Dems so much,” do you mean running independent? Or as a third party?
They’re not *that* stupid. The spoiler effect is, other than gerrymandering, the best-known design flaws in America’s system.
I think the Insurgent Left itself has two subgroups, one of which has greater possibility of public support than the Progressive Establishment and one of which has less. I’ll steal your term and call one of them the Insurgent Left, and I’ll call the other Hardcore Leftists.
On the one hand, you have the Insurgent Left. Members of this group include Zohran Mamdani, AOC since 2025 (with flashes of it since 2023), and Bernie circa 2016 and since 2025. They are unabashedly left wing, but they try to convince people of their policies on the merits. They are also willing to listen to diverse perspectives and compromise when necessary. This group tends to perform at or above expectations.
On the other hand, you have the Hardcore Leftists. Members of this group include AOC and Bernie circa 2018-2022, Francesca Wong before she tried to walk everything back, and AES during the primary. They are also unabashedly left wing, but seem to me to act as though their ideas are self-evidently correct. They are not very willing to compromise, and treat both the Progressive Establishment and Moderates as though they are nearly as bad as MAGA. This group tends to significantly underperform expectations.
If you can’t tell, I think the Insurgent Left is a lot better for the party than the Hardcore Leftists. They’re a bit to my left policy-wise, but they’re so much more willing to engage than the Hardcore Leftists. I might end up arguing with someone in the Insurgent Left, but I don’t feel like I’m going to be bullied if I express a heterodox opinion.
performance pay for teachers sounds good to many a reformist type shit lib. It might work in some places where something clever is launched and some gimmicks keep the kids in school, or perhaps a charismatic principal gets the community invested. Or they pony up for some specialists. But it’s just as likely to not matter at all or encourage teachers to game the system or even cheat. Because in the end, students are people too. They are not always going to be coaxed, manipulated, forced, bedazzled, riveted,
engrossed, threatened whatever into student life.
Things like coming regularly, completing schoolwork, and paying attention are the most
important and if the kid isn’t there, there’s that.
but everything is worth a spin.
Just not grifty gimmicks (i’m talking about most professional development workshops)
cheat.
The point isn't that rewarding teachers for being good at their job is a magic bullet. The goal is to improve schools on the margin. All those other factors will inevitably have their influence, but school systems should at least try to optimize the factors under their control.
they should but performance pay is more of a gamble. You need the money available up front.
Excellent piece
Here's me, drinking RC Cola and wishing for Insurgent Moderates.
The Insurgent Left has kinda figured out that people can only hold 1-2 thoughts in their mind on politics, so focusing on FREE PALESTINE and M4ALL is smart. Their candidates can just say those secret words and still have the flexibility to bend on other issues like Mamdani is doing. You can see the same thing with Trump - as long as he's all BUILD THE WALL and ANTI-WOKE, the GOP grants him flexibility on economic policy, foreign policy, even abortion.
Meanwhile, the Progressive Establishment, as MY says, is all about coalition management and making everyone happy, which means they kinda stand for nothing in the minds of most voters. Moderates also suffer from this a bit, although you see them coalescing around some sort of Abundance movement, which would be helpful for signaling what they are for.
This really seems to describe the United Methodist Church. They have this exact dynamic between Insurgents, Progressive Establishment, and Moderates.
In Michigan, it seems Abdul El-Sayed can run against Rogers being increasingly pro-MAGA even if El-Sayed is to the left of the electorate. See how that works out. But attacking Rogers as being akin to a KKK cross burning because Rogers was being driven around in an old Ford truck with American flags on it? In a state with Motor City? Come on, people. Focus.
Yes we HATE the progressive establishment 🐍 🐍 🐍 Elizabeth Warren is Helya and the Bernie bros and brodettes are Sutur
This seems broadly in tension with your post on Monday.
There you seemed to be advocating for Acemogluan institutionalism. But, here, you’re arguing that precise force has created a network of policy demanders incapable of adapting to the moment or prioritizing. Meanwhile, you’re praising the personalism of the insurgents because they allow them to just do things (or at least promise to just do things). Worse, your prescription for the party’s woes: defeat the bad people!
Re progressive Biden staffers, Matt, it would be good to get at least a few examples, even mundane ones:
"The agenda came from the progressive think tanks and the progressive advocacy infrastructure and was driven by the insertion into key roles of personnel who believed that being responsive to progressive advocacy infrastructure was the most important thing."
I have no doubt this is true, but so far I've never seen anyone point to anything concrete.
He had a lot of former Warren alumni in his administration FWIW https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/15/elizabeth-warren-aides-biden-administration-475653
Good post today.
I love calling it "the Progressive Establishment." Exactly. It's been driving me crazy how so many are saying Platner, El Sayed et al are running against "the Establishment." No! Folks like Bernie, AOC etc *are* part of the Establishment now, and as Matt points out, they form a very important part of the "Democratic Establishment."
In other words, there is no "Establishment." There are instead factions: the Progressive faction, the Moderate faction, and the Insurgent faction.
This will be one hell of a nomination campaign in 2028.
He's not calling Bernie and AOC the progressive establishment. They are insurgents. "Establishment" does not refer to tenure but to their relationship to decision-making power within the party.
The "progressive establishment" refers to normie Dems who, according to Matt, sheepishly triangulate the demands from the network of donor PACs/NGOs ("the groups") who have very progressive policy goals and dole out campaign funds.
"Insurgents" source their power from populism, which gives them greater leverage when interacting with donor groups.
Exactly. Sanders has been in Congress for decades and has been elected office longer than I've been alive.
It always drove me crazy to hear Bernie being referred to as “not part of ~The Establishment~” when being a Senator and before that a Mayor is about as Establishment as you can get! I agree with Marc that it’s better to speak of factions or divisions rather than call a member of Congress “not part of the Establishment.”