After the 2024 Election, Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy emerged as a voice of reform in the Democratic Party. He sought to lead the party forward, shifting messaging away from the social justice ideological orthodoxy to more widely appealing cultural centrism.
He advocated for a radical departure from the party’s governing economic policy – neoliberalism – to a new left-populism and political center. As I wrote in these pages earlier this year, Murphy best encapsulated a robust, introspective response to the second victory of Donald Trump and MAGA, chiefly evidenced in a November 10 video posted to his social media accounts. It was a call for a new left that was – and remains – deeply inspiring.
However, since the inauguration of Donald Trump, Murphy has unfortunately shown that he does not seek true reform. His ideas are still far more practical and inspiring than many of his Democratic peers in Congress. However, his total opposition to all things MAGA is a hindrance.
I am not a conservative and believe that many aspects of MAGA do trivialize the hopes and aspirations of the American people, but not categorically so. I would know. I attend Columbia University, an institution that recently suffered from a Trump Administration cut in funding, the impacts of which will affect all students and faculty. However, if the Democrats seek to develop an adequate response to MAGA, they must meet Americans where they are and forge discourse with the president and his movement, which has, for better or worse, won a decisive popular mandate.
Murphy has failed in the following ways:
Murphy is unwilling to seriously depart from the status quo.
The American public is growing increasingly distrustful of institutions, often with good reason.
This calls for a shift in the status quo – one currently matched by the right but not the left. Individuals now have an overwhelmingly negative view of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). As Tom Nicholson argues in his Wall Street Journal article, “The Left Didn’t Always Love USAID,” “Many critics in the New Left movement of the 1960s and ’70s also criticized USAID for some of its more nefarious actions, deeming them politically subversive and manipulative.”
It was the left that, for decades, was deeply skeptical of the agency’s support of brutal US-aligned dictatorships in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Sociologist James Petras’ extensive research shows that USAID-funded NGOs have long served to expand US imperialist goals in the Global South. As recent as 2010, USAID operated as a CIA front in Cuba, launching a social media platform likened to a “digital Bay of Pigs” to foster dissent among Cubans.
On other fronts, too, USAID seeks to uphold U.S. imperialism and establish a pro-U.S. narrative. It is a large funder of the Media Action arm of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) that was founded to promote presumably pro-Western “high standards of journalism” in the Former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe after the fall of Communism in the 90s. The agency continues to be a major financial supporter pro-Western Ukrainian media.
What is more, USAID does not even achieve its own stated goals in practice. The agency has long failed to achieve its target of 25% of funds going to local organizations, the ones with the most impact in communities. Even so, Murphy has emerged as one of USAID’s most vocal supporters. It is true that Elon Musk and Trump seek to completely gut and terminate the agency, potentially putting the global flow of humanitarian aid in jeopardy. It is entirely reasonable for, and even expected of, a Democratic senator to question this brash decision-making. But Murphy is effectively advocating for the continuation of business as usual at USAID, not reform.
This is not a reversion to true leftism; it is a continued support of the neoconservative/neoliberal establishment that Murphy himself acknowledges cost the Democrats the election. Protesting outside USAID headquarters in Washington, Murphy mainly focused on China, stating that “USAID chases China all around the world, making sure China doesn’t monopolize contracts for critical minerals and port infrastructure all around the world.” This is a hawkish understanding of the multipolar world order and paranoia of China. It is also a subtle admission that USAID’s chief purpose is not humanitarian aid but U.S. imperialism. Does fear of China justify this aid-industrial complex?
As Carlos Cruz Mosquera writes in the socialist magazine Jacobin, USAID was always about furthering U.S. imperialism across the world. According to Mosquera, USAID funds have been used to “compel nations in the Global South to adopt neoliberal policies, reinforcing their dependency on the United States and Europe.”
He believes that Trump’s action on USAID unveils “the true purpose of foreign aid in serving U.S. ruling-class interests.” It is hard to argue with this. What makes this worse is that taxpayer dollars have been going to this operation.
It is understandable that the American people would be appalled at USAID, as self-styled left-populist like Murphy should be. How would supporting an agency like USAID, as is, ever regain the support of working Americans?
The senator also declined to attend Trump’s Joint Address to Congress on March 4, telling CNN, “I think that State of the Union speech is going to be a farce.”
Whatever Murphy’s opinions are about Trump – many of which I likely share – this is not how one should go about shaping the future of the Democratic Party. The shift in party identity, appealing to the working class and a broad center, that Murphy advocates for cannot be achieved by ignoring the president.
It should come as no surprise that Murphy’s antics are, once again, at odds with the people of this country. Some 76% of Americans approve of Trump’s speech, according to a widely circulated CBS/YouGov poll. Creating “a new political center based on class, not identity” requires showing up to the political forum and dealing honestly with a president and a movement that has the overwhelming support of the working class.
Murphy is failing to have open discourse.
Murphy sought a Democratic Party that fought disagreements about social justice issues from within a broad Democratic tent. Instead, he has emerged as one of the foremost advocates of this social justice ideological orthodoxy. In a March 4 post on X, he announced that “Republicans are trying to pass another resolution blaming the country’s problems on gay and transgender kids and drag shows. To distract from measles outbreaks, rising costs, and the stock market crash.”
This is the same dogmatic us-versus-them mentality that, as Murphy acknowledges, led to the Democrat’s defeat in the election. Rather than holding an honest conversation on the social justice orthodoxy, Murphy seeks to blame Republican attacks against it as merely a distraction.
This is simply a failure to hold open discourse. It comes as Americans are overwhelmingly turning away from the use of social justice language. And for all Murphy’s talk about how Trump stokes division, he recently reposted on X, “Big congrats to Little Marco Rubio, the first Secretary of State in history to have his policy edicts pocket vetoed by a 19 year old vaper named Big Balls.”
As a young man – a demographic that decidedly voted for Trump in the 2024 election – this is anything but reassuring in my trust of the Democratic Party. As the former communications director of the National Youth Rights Association, I also see it as an ageist attack on youth and our intelligence. For me, what may legitimately discredit Trump, Musk, and the DOGE program is how they have routinely gotten the facts wrong and are attempting to, seemingly without much restraint, gut key agencies. Rhetoric about a “19 year old vaper named Big Balls” does little to help.
Murphy is not building the bigger tent he envisioned – or his party.
Murphy’s behavior is starkly contrasted against other leaders in the Democratic Party who are, so far, making true to their promises for change. This includes one of Murphy’s fellow senators, John Fetterman, who has emerged not unlike Murphy as a voice for centrist and leftist opposition to the neoliberal world order.
Yet Fetterman is willing to hold discourse with the right and acknowledge the validity of some of their ideas. Even as someone supportive of DOGE’s mission, he has fierily called it and Musk out for their transgressions. And make no mistake: Fetterman is still a Democrat. On March 3 he posted on X that, “The small handful of trans athletes in PA in a political maelstrom deserve an ally and I am one.” Fetterman understands that he must reach out to the party in power, and agree with them, in good faith, on what he finds to be common-sense policy solution. Murphy instead dogmatically opposes Trump and MAGA, which is no way to build a larger Democratic tent.
The Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, is another example of a leading and change-making voice in the Democratic Party. In his recent podcast with the head of the conservative action group Turning Point, Charlie Kirk, the governor broke with the Democratic status quo on trans athletes in trans sports, saying it was an issue of fairness. Newsom acknowledged the legitimate reasons for the Democratic electoral defeat in November and engaged with a Kirk in a tone of respect and understanding. I am not saying that all Democratic politicians must oppose trans athletes participating in women’s sports; Fetterman does not.
That said, if Democrats seek to truly move away from neoliberalism, gain support among a youth electorate that is increasingly moving right, and rebuild their party as one that is truly on the left and advocating for common Americans, they must convince voters.
That starts by reaching out to into the MAGAverse and toning down the social justice rhetoric, keeping an open mind, and appearing on and further participating in conservative-dominated media such as podcasts. Fetterman appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience shortly before the election, and Newsom now has his own podcast whose very first guest was the MAGA warrior Kirk. Murphy has yet to reach out to the other side. He instead frequently appears on CNN – just like the neoliberals the senator so fundamentally disagrees with.
I still have hope in our senator. He has the bold and correct ideas. These are the ideas that could forge a new American leftism based on the prosperity and freedom of the people as opposed to multinational corporations, and win back the support of the working class. They are urgently needed and I appreciate Murphy as a unique and definitive advocate for this vision.
But I would, perhaps like many others, like to see our senator put his ideas into practice. If the Democratic Party is to undergo a true renaissance, it must be through opposition to neoliberalism and by creating a broad tent in a new political center. The best way for Murphy to do that is to continue articulating his opinions honestly but thinking with nuance and questioning the narratives of his party’s establishment.
It means seeing Trump, Musk, and MAGA not as the devil but as a force with which he may generally disagree but may also agree on certain issues. It means going on podcasts and talking to important figures on the other side of the aisle.
If Murphy is serious about achieving his plan for a new Democratic Party, and I strongly believe that he is, he must act urgently.
Nikos Mohammadi of Glastonbury is a student at Columbia University, Staff Writer at the Columbia Political Review and Communications Director of the National Youth Rights Association.