Thursday, October 1, 2026
There is a lot to like about the idea of a “big tent” political party. A broad coalition should make room for people who challenge old assumptions and push their leaders to do better. But a big tent can’t become the stock answer that establishment leaders use to avoid a basic question: Which of these new ideas do they embrace, and which do they reject?
As public debate gets pushed toward the ideological edge, why are the loudest and most radical voices carrying the day? Most voters aren’t on the outskirts; they occupy the broad middle, yet the fringe seems to define the conversation. The middle has the numbers, but the fringe has the power. How did that happen?
The answer begins with who actually shows up. As we’ve seen in recent primaries across the country, small, motivated factions know how to organize volunteers and turn out voters when almost everyone else stays home. In places where one party dominates, a primary victory can all but guarantee a general-election win. Party leaders, eager to preserve their coalition, welcome these groups into the “big tent” for the sake of unity, even when their proposals have no broad support. Leaders yield the agenda to those with the flashiest promises — free buses, universal child care and artificially discounted grocery stores, to name a few.
These promises sound generous, but “free” buses still need drivers; universal child care still requires trained caregivers, and the groceries in discounted supermarkets aren’t magically cheaper because the politician says so. Taxpayer-funded services are never free; their cost is just passed on to someone else. And that shell game has been played a long time. Victorian-era playwright George Bernard Shaw wrote, “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”
Take the recent rent-freeze proposal in New York City: While the rent in certain apartments may stay the same, the landlord is still responsible for property taxes and building repairs. The city says the landlord can’t collect that money, but, hypocritically, it still demands that it be paid. So those costs don’t disappear; they are spread to unregulated units in the form of higher rent.
Owners also defer maintenance and pull back on renovations. Over time, fewer apartments are available, and rents throughout the market go up. New renters, young families and the working class have fewer choices and are left to pay higher rents.
Again, the fringe makes the policy, but everybody in the middle lives with the consequences. That’s just one example, but stack all of these pie-in-the-sky promises together and the costs become unsustainable.
The Democratic Socialists of America offer the most recent example of a faction moving from the political fringe into prominence within a political party. Democratic leaders cautiously describe the group as just part of the party’s big tent. But a number of Democrats and mainstream media are now drawing distinctions. They’re asking what, exactly, they are welcoming.
The economic squeeze from democratic socialists’ policies is only part of the concern — the more they unveils their platform, the more troubling it seems. The DSA has openly called for public ownership of essential industry, the abolition of the police and prisons, full voting rights for non-citizens, and a permanently open border. That’s what its members want and fight for.
Its national organization has also formally and openly supported the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, and DSA’s current endorsement requirements for candidates include mandatory support for BDS. Those positions, along with DSA’s broader approach to Israel and Zionism, have prompted serious concerns about antisemitism among many political observers.
The point for the everyday person is that these are not modest reforms. These are divisive ideological positions, and voters deserve to understand where people stand when they seek public office, especially those who have DSA support.
While a big tent can tolerate dissent, it should not give the run of the house to whomever shouts the loudest. That just makes transparency even more important. Elected officials and candidates must be clear about where they stand, whom they accept support from, and which parts of those organizations’ platforms they embrace or reject. Voters in the middle deserve to know where their representatives draw the line.
Jack Martins represents the 7th State Senate District.
