A peculiar development has been noticed lately in the U.S. political arena—the endorsement of Democratic candidates by those typically linked to the far right faction of the Republican party. Most notably, former Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz Cheney raised eyebrows when they endorsed Kamala Harris’ presidential run. Mainstream media outlets have painted this unlikely allegiance as an inspiring instance of bipartisan unity in response to the perceived threat to democracy posed by former President Donald Trump. However, a deeper look reveals that these endorsements signify less a victory for democratic principles and more a severe critique of the current political landscape.
The Deception of a ‘Popular Front’
Advocates of this unexpected coalition argue it represents a necessary “popular front” against the authoritarian menace represented by Trump and his followers. They insist that during times of crisis, ideological differences must be pushed aside to safeguard the pillars of our democracy. But this perspective is based on a fundamentally flawed assumption—that the system these centrists and far right individuals are rallying to defend is inherently democratic.
The political establishment that the Cheneys and their Democratic allies aim to protect is one that perpetuates relentless wars and military interventions worldwide, from Iraq to Libya to the ongoing support for Israel’s attack on Gaza. It exacerbates severe economic disparity, with wealth becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few. This system consistently supports and arms oppressive regimes when it aligns with U.S. corporate interests, from Saudi Arabia to Thailand. It operates a mass incarceration system that disproportionally targets communities of color and fails to take substantial action on existential threats like climate change due to the influence of fossil fuel lobbyists.
The Democratic Party’s readiness to accept far-right endorsements exposes their posturing as champions of the working class and adversaries of elite power.
This is the system that the so-called “popular front” is rallying to protect. Not a shining example of democracy, but a corrupt oligarchy posing as one. The fight against Trump’s authoritarianism, while undoubtedly necessary, is being exploited to bolster support for a status quo that is itself deeply anti-democratic in its operations.
The acceptance of individuals like the Cheneys also uncovers a deeply concerning moral relativism at the heart of the Democratic establishment. After all, Dick Cheney was a prime architect of the Iraq War—a war built on falsehoods that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians and destabilized an entire region. He has been an unrepentant defender of torture and an advocate of unchecked executive power.
That Democrats would welcome such a figure into their ranks speaks volumes about their moral compass and political priorities. It suggests that in their calculation, the stain of association with war criminals and corporate oligarchs is outweighed by potential electoral advantages. This is not principled politics—it’s cynical opportunism that contradicts any claim to truly progressive values.
The Failure of Centrism and the Democratic Establishment
Understanding this phenomenon requires acknowledging the intellectual and moral failure of political centrism as it exists in the United States today. Centrists pride themselves on their alleged pragmatism and willingness to collaborate with the other side. However, in reality, this “pragmatism” almost always leans to the right, pulling the entire political spectrum toward a more conservative stance.
We see this in how ideas previously considered extreme right-wing positions have been normalized as “centrist” compromises. We see it in the adoption of Republican narratives on issues like crime, fracking, welfare, and national security. And we see it now in the glorification of figures like Dick Cheney as principled defenders of democracy, conveniently forgetting their long histories of supporting deeply anti-democratic policies.
This contraction of the political spectrum has serious implications for American democracy, effectively disenfranchising millions of citizens whose views and interests are not represented by either major party.
The Democratic Party’s readiness to accept far-right endorsements exposes their posturing as advocates for the working class and opponents of elite power. Their rhetoric may occasionally touch on populist themes, but their actions reveal a party that is fundamentally at ease with the current distribution of power and wealth in society. By welcoming figures like the Cheneys into their coalition, Democrats are sending a clear message—they don’t oppose elites per se, only those particular elites who threaten their own position in the established order.
This elite consensus is evident in the policy priorities of Democratic administrations. Whether under former President Barack Obama or current President Joe Biden, we see a consistent pattern of rescuing banks and major corporations while offering only meager assistance to struggling workers. We see promises of a new direction in foreign policy coupled with a continuation of the same interventionist approach.
The result is a democracy where the differences between the two parties, while real, are far narrower than their rhetoric would suggest. Both ultimately serve the interests of corporate power and the military-industrial complex, merely disagreeing on the details of implementation. This contraction of the political spectrum has serious implications for American democracy, effectively disenfranchising millions of citizens whose views and interests are not represented by either major party.
Furthermore, this centrist consensus serves to stifle genuine debate and innovation in policymaking. By defining the range of “acceptable” ideas so narrowly, it excludes potentially transformative solutions to the pressing problems facing the country. Ideas like Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, or serious corporate regulation are dismissed as fringe or unrealistic, while failed policies of the past are recycled under new branding.
The Immediate Need for Alternatives
Looking at this grim political landscape, the pressing need for genuine alternatives becomes increasingly apparent. While it remains strategically important to influence local and national elections, recent events in France serve as a stark reminder of the limitations of this approach.
French President Emmanuel Macron’s appointment of Michel Barnier, a conservative politician, as prime minister following a fractured election result illustrates how centrist parties will ultimately betray the left in favor of the right. Despite the left-wing New Popular Front coalition winning the most seats in the snap elections, Macron chose to align with the right, including appeasing the far-right National Rally. This decision reveals where the true class allegiances of centrist politicians lie—with the established order and corporate interests, rather than with progressive change.
Ultimately, the spectacle of Democrats accepting far-right endorsements should not lead to despair, but rather serve as a rallying cry for genuine, transformative change.
This pattern is not unique to France. In the United States, the Democratic Party’s acceptance of far-right endorsements follows a similar logic. By welcoming figures like the Cheneys into their ranks, Democrats signal their willingness to preserve the status quo at the expense of meaningful reform. This move to the right is not a deviation but a reflection of the party’s fundamental priorities.
The danger in this situation lies not just in the immediate policy implications, but in the long-term erosion of political possibilities. By supporting these endorsements, even tacitly by not challenging the Democrats to reject them, progressives risk surrendering the ground of real transformative change to the right wing. The language of anti-elitism and systemic change, divorced from a truly progressive economic and social agenda, becomes the domain of right-wing populists.
The challenge, then, is twofold. On one hand, there is an urgent need to build political power outside of the two-party system. This involves investing in grassroots organizing, mutual aid networks, and alternative economic structures that can provide a glimpse of a different way of organizing society. It involves fostering a political culture that prioritizes the needs of working people over the demands of corporate donors.
On the other hand, there is a need for a more assertive and unapologetic progressive movement within electoral politics. This movement must be willing to challenge the Democratic establishment, to reject compromises that betray core values, and to articulate a vision of change that goes beyond incremental reforms. It must be willing to call out the hypocrisy of accepting far-right figures in the name of “unity” while marginalizing progressive voices.
Ultimately, the spectacle of Democrats accepting far-right endorsements should not lead to despair, but rather serve as a rallying cry for genuine, transformative change. It exposes the emptiness at the heart of centrist politics and underscores the need for a political movement that truly represents the interests of the many rather than the elite few.
