2026-06-29T10:38:31-04:00 / 福克斯新闻
愈演愈烈的社会主义倾向加深民主党分歧，哈基姆·杰弗里斯发起反击
福克斯新闻撰稿人拜伦·约克就民主党内部分歧加深之际社会主义思潮抬头展开讨论，众议院少数党领袖哈基姆·杰弗里斯正艰难应对极左翼候选人的挑战。约克分析了纽约市长佐赫兰·曼达尼支持的极端候选人赢得初选所带来的影响。约克还谈到了民主党极左翼阵营内部存在的反犹主义担忧。
这个男人看起来疲惫不堪。
民主党众议院领袖哈基姆·杰弗里斯的资深观察人士一眼就能看出他何时没睡好。
有些政客在压力下会粗声粗气地说话。另一些人则会变得极度亢奋。有些人会挑起争端。其他人则会沉默退缩。杰弗里斯则会面部浮肿。
“谢瓦利埃就是我们的大卫·杜克。她正在破坏民主党赢得多数席位的可能性。”
>
——民主党资深人士
多年来，纽约州和华盛顿特区的资深政坛人士都注意到了这一标志性特征。当这位布鲁克林民主党人出现在早间电视节目中时，看起来有点眼袋浮肿，双眼周围微微肿胀；当他以标志性的沉稳语速讲话时，却在阐述观点时磕磕绊绊；当他明显流露出那种本该睡7小时却只挤了3小时的茫然神情时，通常意味着他整晚都在打电话。
哈基姆·杰弗里斯在纽约民主党社会主义者胜选后遭“下一个就是你”口号质问
众议院民主党领袖哈基姆·杰弗里斯面临越来越大的压力，民主党社会主义者支持的候选人在纽约影响力上升，这引发了人们对该党意识形态方向的新质疑。(汤姆·威廉姆斯/CQ-滚呼公司 via 盖蒂图片社)
清点票数。
扑灭怒火。
试图解决问题。
自周二以来，问题就出在他自己的政党内部。
不是唐纳德·特朗普。
不是共和党。
不是经济。
不是支出法案。
是民主党。
更具体地说，是民主党内部的美国民主社会主义者。
过去一周的大部分时间里，杰弗里斯都呆呆地面对着可能是他职业生涯中最棘手的政治挑战——他之所以陷入困境，并非因为不清楚自己的想法，而是因为他完全清楚自己的立场。
他认为，民主党人需要以主流形象来赢得摇摆选区。他相信，经济负担能力比意识形态更能打动选民。他认为大多数美国人不想要政治革命。他当然也相信，从唐纳德·特朗普总统往下的共和党人，会迫不及待地让每一位竞争对手为民主党内部最具争议的声音负责。
这一直是意识形态运动的危险所在。它们很少会安分地局限于最初兴起的社区。它们会扩散。它们会重塑政党形象。它们会迫使所有打着同一旗号的人为并非自己招募的队友承担责任。
本周，这样的威胁径直摆在了杰弗里斯的办公桌上。
这场头疼事的源头是纽约市。去年11月，佐赫兰·曼达尼以惊人优势赢得民主党市长职位，如今这一幕又上演了一场影响重大的续集：曼达尼支持的三名候选人——布拉德·兰德勒、克莱尔·巴尔德斯和达丽亚利扎·阿维拉·谢瓦利埃——赢得了国会初选。巴尔德斯和谢瓦利埃均为美国民主社会主义者成员。
这些胜选的意义远远超出了纽约州本身。
多年来，民主党建制派一直自我安慰，认为对民主社会主义的支持仅限于少数安全选区，这些选区由那些能制造有线电视新闻话题但对党的整体方向影响有限的个性鲜明的议员代表。
周二的结果表明情况并非如此。民主社会主义者不仅凭借边缘选票守住了党内的一隅之地，还实现了扩张——而且是在杰弗里斯的后院扩张。
这种困境对这位民主党领袖的影响怎么强调都不为过。
杰弗里斯既不是伯尼·桑德斯，也不是亚历山德里亚·奥卡西奥-科特兹。相反，杰弗里斯多年来一直精心塑造着一名纪律严明的制度主义者形象——一位能够吸引进步派而又不吓到郊区温和派的现代民主党领袖。他的个人政治立场始终比其联盟中那些喧闹的活动家更接近政治中间派。就性格和本能而言，他是一位联盟构建者。
联盟构建者不喜欢内战。对杰弗里斯来说，解释并巧妙应对日益壮大的派系，同时不在党内引爆炸弹，是一个重大障碍。
周二的结果公布后，记者和主播们立刻开始询问杰弗里斯对新提名候选人的看法——不是他是否支持他们，而是他是否支持他们明确表态支持的政策。这是一个不可能回答的问题，因为所有人都早已知道答案。杰弗里斯并不认为美国应该废除移民海关执法局、监狱或警察部队。他从未主张拆除资本主义，也从未认同美国民主社会主义者的许多更广泛的意识形态立场。
因此，他做了经验丰富的政治领袖在原则与务实之间陷入困境时通常会做的事：试图转移话题。
在一次又一次的采访中，杰弗里斯温和、模糊地承认，他并不认同候选人的每一个立场或此前的言论。他将谈话转向经济负担能力、民主党其他胜选以及全国整体选情。这是典型的哈基姆·杰弗里斯风格：礼貌、沉稳、有纪律且谨慎。
但政治很少能让谨慎的人永远置身事外，没过多久，其中一位候选人谢瓦利埃就成了全国新闻的焦点。
反对党研究人员——以及越来越多的记者——开始挖掘谢瓦利埃多年来的社交媒体帖子和公开声明，这些内容立场坚定、态度明确。她确实呼吁废除警察和监狱，主张取消边境和移民海关执法局。她用粗俗的语言严厉批评卡玛拉·哈里斯和乔·拜登，并谴责美国是“他妈的耻辱”。她涉及种族、白人女性和跨种族关系的大量帖子迅速传播开来，先是在保守媒体，随后出现在MSNBC和CNN上。
对许多人来说，她删除并否认部分帖子并不重要。
一位民主党资深人士遗憾地告诉我：“谢瓦利埃就是我们的大卫·杜克。她正在破坏民主党赢得多数席位的可能性。”
奥卡西奥-科特兹在纽约社会主义者大胜后警告民主党现任议员
哈基姆·杰弗里斯正在平衡党内团结与日益加剧的担忧：美国民主社会主义者支持的候选人可能会使民主党赢得摇摆选区的努力复杂化。(安娜·莫尼梅克/盖蒂图片社)
但另一位熟悉众议院党团、与进步派阵营结盟的民主党人提出了相反的观点。“现实情况是，党内初选的政治能量是反对种族灭绝、反对亿万富翁、支持全民医保。许多温和派和众议院民主党议员很难接受这一点。但这就是初选选民的诉求。不幸的是，他们不必要地给杰弗里斯施压，而不是让他拥抱进步派阵营。”
无论谢瓦利埃的言论被视为青年激进主义、真诚的意识形态信念还是政治渎职，它们都确保了一件事：质疑不会停止。
共和党人立刻意识到他们得到了一份大礼，而民主党人也知道，每个竞争选区的候选人现在都可能面临类似的质疑：你同意这个吗？这是你的政党吗？谢瓦利埃代表了当今的民主党吗？
杰弗里斯无疑清楚事情的走向。但在周六下午，他还是在X平台上发布了一条庆祝帖子，正式欢迎谢瓦利埃、兰德勒和巴尔德斯。
“恭喜我们加入纽约国会代表团的新成员，”他写道。“从公职人员到工会组织者再到社区活动家，道路各不相同，但工作是一样的。我们必须果断解决经济负担能力危机，击败极右翼极端主义！”
通过这一声明，杰弗里斯承认，尽管这会损害自己的声誉（线上线下皆是如此），但他的首要任务是赢得多数席位。
“杰弗里斯正在做他需要做的事，以尽可能保持民主党党团的团结，”纽约一位资深民主党政治顾问告诉我。“这意味着要确保我们的阵营尽可能广泛地被接纳，同时在明年1月组建一个（有望）执政的联盟。坚持立场、声称这些人是社会主义者因此不属于我们，不会带来任何胜利。他们会投票支持杰弗里斯[担任议长]，我们在这方面以及未来的许多事情上都需要他们的选票。去年市长选举中没有意识到这一点的人也付出了实实在在的代价。”
即便如此，温和派民主党人还是公开和私下敦促杰弗里斯，要在党的主流选民与社会主义阵营之间划出更清晰的界限。周二之后，这些呼吁急剧升级。
当我就X平台帖子的内容和发布时间，以及他可能如何回应那些要求他谴责谢瓦利埃和其他有争议候选人的呼声询问杰弗里斯的发言人时，她仅表示，杰弗里斯在本届选举周期的几乎每一场竞选中都发布过类似的祝贺信息，代表来自每个州、背景和意识形态的候选人。
但对党内许多最突出的声音来说，这远远不够。
来自新泽西州的资深温和派/中间派民主党众议员乔希·戈特海默告诉《犹太内幕》，社会主义者的反以色列立场是“一种日益增长的毒瘤，我们不能让它扩散，也不能忽视它”。他警告称，即将上任的美国民主社会主义者联盟议员将来到华盛顿，“在国会制造混乱”，并试图“将党作为人质”以推行他们的社会主义观点。“这将导致更多的僵局和功能失调，辛勤工作的家庭将为此付出代价，”他说。“社会主义者将个人仇恨置于我们的国家安全和对盟友的承诺之上。我认为我们必须在看到仇恨时就予以谴责。”
“这太过分了，”资深民主党战略家詹姆斯·卡维尔也表示赞同。他警告称，支持那些政治立场远远超出政党历史主流的候选人，可能会疏远民主党夺回稳固且持久的执政多数席位所需的选民。他认为谢瓦利埃的政治观点完全违背了民主党，坚称“他们不应该让她进入党团。她的观点完全不符合任何民主党人的立场。我们信奉多元主义，而她不相信跨种族约会……女士，我可不想和你同属一个政党……她攻击跨种族关系和美国国旗。”卡维尔认为这是一条不可逾越的红线。“我确实认为现在是民主党人正视‘分裂’这个词的时候了，”他说。“分裂。我真的这么认为。大家总是说，‘不，不，我们是一个联盟。我们有一个大帐篷。’但有些——有些事情我就是不能和你在同一个帐篷里。”
特朗普本人也看到了类似的严峻局面。“民主党麻烦大了，”他周五在信仰与自由联盟政策会议上表示。“因为这不会在纽约就停止。在我看来，这是我国历史上最严重的威胁。”
与此同时，杰弗里斯明白，民主党内部的恐惧正双向蔓延。温和派民主党人担心失去摇摆选民。党领袖担心失去自己的基础选民。主导许多民主党初选的活动家们参与度高、组织性强且愤怒不已。他们已经表明，他们愿意针对他们认为进步不足的现任议员。上周纽约选举夜的庆功会上，杰弗里斯肯定感到了一丝紧张。当他的形象出现时，美国民主社会主义者的庆祝者们用不祥的口号“下一个就是你！”向他发出了警告。
可以肯定的是，这不是民主党领导人第一次面临来自党内左翼的叛乱。
在唐纳德·特朗普的第一任总统任期内，南希·佩洛西也曾面临过类似的麻烦，当时“国会四姐妹”崛起。新议员亚历山德里亚·奥卡西奥-科特兹、伊尔汗·奥马尔、拉希达·特莱布和阿雅娜·普雷斯利，无论是独立行动还是作为团队，都凭借其年轻、魅力、现代活力、不敬和有争议的观点几乎一夜之间成为媒体明星。共和党人一直试图通过他们最激进的言论来定义整个民主党。
佩洛西的回应非常有效。她没有试图在意识形态上击败他们，而是从制度层面进行管理。她提醒所有人，谁负责计票、控制委员会分配、筹集资金、确定立法优先级，以及拥有将口号转化为法律的经验和权力。必要时，佩洛西会批评“国会四姐妹”，但更多时候，她只是在策略上胜过他们。
南希·佩洛西明白许多意识形态运动都忘记的一点：在国会，权力不是由社交媒体粉丝数量衡量的，而是由集齐218票的能力衡量的。
杰弗里斯继承了佩洛西的职位，但没有继承她的权威。他从未担任过议长，也没有花多年时间管教多数党。他不必在平衡数十个相互竞争的派系的同时，决定哪位议员能获得 coveted 委员会主席职位。最重要的是，他从未在民主党席位微弱的情况下执政。
如果民主党在今年11月仅以少数席位赢得众议院，那么算术将变得残酷。
每一位议员和每一张选票都至关重要，每一次叛逃也同样如此。一群毫不妥协的意识形态议员所能施加的影响力，将远远超出其规模。共和党人深知这一点，凯文·麦卡锡从中吸取了惨痛教训，迈克·约翰逊如今也正在经历这一切。杰弗里斯可能很快就会亲身体验到这一点。
这也解释了为什么本周的事件不仅仅关乎几场纽约初选。民主党内部的这场斗争已经酝酿多年。
伯尼·桑德斯两次证明，民主社会主义在民主党总统初选中拥有巨大的吸引力。亚历山德里亚·奥卡西奥-科特兹将激进行动主义转变为名人政治和品牌辨识度。曼达尼魅力十足且毫不妥协，他证明了这场运动能够拿下美国最大的城市。
这场运动尤其强大的地方在于，它找到了一个植根于情感的组织原则，远远超出了传统的左右派政治。对许多年轻活动家来说，巴以冲突，尤其是加沙的局势，不仅是一个外交政策问题，更是一个道德试金石。“种族灭绝”“种族隔离”和“定居者殖民主义”等词汇已经从校园抗议活动进入民主党初选、网络施压运动和活动现场的频繁质问，营造出一种传统建制派政客往往难以理解的紧张氛围。无论这些描述被接受还是激烈争议，无论它们是否沦为轻率的道德信号，政治现实都不可否认：关于加沙的争论已经成为草根行动主义和候选人招募的强大引擎，这是几乎所有民主党领导人都未曾预料到的。
美国民主社会主义者的每一次胜利都增强了这场运动的信心，使其更不愿妥协，同时也给民主党领袖带来了更大压力——他们必须设法说服郊区选民，这一切都不能代表民主党，同时还要向活动家保证，这确实代表了他们。
这种平衡行为每一次选举周期都变得更加困难，如今已经濒临无法持续的边缘。
而这不仅仅是哈基姆·杰弗里斯的问题。查克·舒默也面临着同样的挑战。作为参议院民主党领袖，他必须处理缅因州与社会主义阵营结盟的（且存在严重缺陷的）候选人格雷厄姆·普拉特纳，以及密歇根州8月参议院初选的领跑者阿卜杜勒·埃尔赛义德——另一位桑德斯的门徒，同样持有有争议的观点。
在许多方面，杰弗里斯和舒默正在应对乔·拜登和卡玛拉·哈里斯在其任期内回避的问题。随着进步文化政治和日益尖锐的反以色列情绪在精英机构、大学、活动组织和社交媒体中蔓延，拜登政府通常寻求妥协而非对抗。其结果是，曾经 largely confined to activist circles 的观点稳步、不受阻碍地进入民主党初选——不仅在纽约，还在蓝领城市、大学城，甚至美国一些最红的州的部分地区。拒绝管控联盟边界的领导人最终会发现，其他人已经重新划定了这些边界。
也许杰弗里斯希望这场争议会逐渐平息。
华盛顿当然有能力转移话题。特朗普仍然能够在任何房间、任何危机中占据所有焦点。不可避免地，会有其他国际紧急事件、预算摊牌、政治和文化热点事件。杰弗里斯有一些潜在的救命稻草，比如他的同僚自然的成长。例如，奥卡西奥-科特兹近年来已不再是一个制造麻烦的人，而是更多地成为一名立法者。她仍然坚定地站在党的左翼，但她已经学会了联盟构建、政党纪律和选择时机的价值。杰弗里斯有理由希望，如今的激进分子最终也会走上类似的道路。当然，风险在于，新一代人可能会认为奥卡西奥-科特兹的温和化和成熟程度过高。已经有迹象表明了这种情绪。
因此，尽管政治有转移焦点的非凡能力，但这场美国民主社会主义者争议可能不会平息。这些新候选人中的一些人的观点过于极端，对大多数美国人来说过于冒犯，对那些想要平静而非闹剧、常识而非模糊的时髦意识形态的公民来说过于令人不快。
会有更多被存档的帖子。更多旧视频。更多尴尬的采访。更多共和党广告。更多在国会大厅被高喊的问题。更多不自在的电视露面。更多大胆且分裂的言论。而且，如果民主党赢得众议院，党领袖与那些将妥协视为治理而非投降的议员之间的内部谈判将更加艰难。
杰弗里斯欢迎民主社会主义者加入阵营，批评者警告民主党正暴露“真实面目”
纽约的民主社会主义者胜选加剧了关于民主党未来的辩论，也给杰弗里斯带来了艰难的政治考验。(安娜·莫尼梅克/盖蒂图片社)
更广泛的教训不仅仅适用于杰弗里斯。各政党可以容忍分歧和派系，甚至激烈的内部斗争。但更深层次的威胁是，假装在同一面宽大旗帜下行进的人们最终都朝着同一个目标前进。
如今的民主党包含希望让资本主义更好运转的中间派、希望更激进地监管资本主义的进步派，以及公开质疑资本主义本身是否应该继续作为美国生活组织原则的民主社会主义者。这些不仅仅是政策分歧。它们是对国家的不同愿景。
杰弗里斯明白这一点。
他也知道，众议院选举的胜负不在公园坡，而在那些摇摆选民通常直到三十秒电视广告闪过屏幕，上面显示着最具争议的引语，旁边配着“民主党候选人”字样时，才会关注国会的地方。他还知道，对其他人来说，民主党建制派及其官员现在比社会主义更不受欢迎。
有时候，领导力与其说是在好的选项之间做出选择，不如说是在坏的选项之间做出选择。本周，哈基姆·杰弗里斯面对的全是糟糕的选择，他选择了口头上的党内团结。
现在判断杰弗里斯的选择是精明的政治手腕——还是仅仅是一场必然漫长的关于其政党未来的谈判中的首次妥协，还为时过早。
_政治分析师、畅销书作家马克·哈尔珀林是新型交互式直播视频平台_2WAY_的总编辑。
https://www..com/video/6399373070112
Jeffries’ socialism dilemma: New York victories expose Democratic Party divide
2026-06-29T10:38:31-04:00 / Fox News
Surging socialism deepens Democrat divisions as Hakeem Jeffries pushes back
Fox News contributor Byron York discusses socialism rise on deepening Democrat divisions as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries struggles to counter far-left candidates. York analyzes the impact of extreme candidates, like those backed by New York’s mayor Zohran Mamdani, winning primaries. York also weighs in on concerns about antisemitism within the Democratic Party’s far-left ranks.
The man looks tired.
Veteran observers of Democratic House Leader Hakeem Jeffries know at a glance when the fellow isn’t catching his Zs.
Some politicians bark gruffly when they are under pressure. Others become wildly frenetic. Some pick fights. Others go quiet, and retreat. Jeffries gets puffy.
“Chevalier is our David Duke. She is poisoning the possibility of a Democratic majority.”
>
— Democratic Party stalwart
It has been one of those tells that longtime Empire State and Washington, D.C. hands have noticed for years. When the Brooklyn Democrat appears on morning television looking a little baggy, a tad swollen around the eyes; when he speaks in his trademark measured cadence but stumbles over the elucidation; when he presents the unmistakable glaze of someone who has squeezed three hours of sleep into what should have been a seven-hour night, it usually means he spent the evening on the phone.
HAKEEM JEFFRIES CONFRONTED ON ‘YOU’RE NEXT’ CHANTS FOLLOWING NY DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST VICTORIES
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries faces growing pressure as democratic socialist-backed candidates gain influence in New York, raising new questions about the party’s ideological direction.(Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Counting votes.
Putting out fires.
Trying to solve a problem.
Since Tuesday, the problem has been coming from inside his own party.
Not Donald Trump.
Not Republicans.
Not the economy.
Not the spending bill.
The Democratic Party.
More specifically, the Democratic Socialists of America inside the Democratic Party.
For much of the last week, Jeffries has found himself staring transfixed at perhaps the most difficult political challenge of his career — immobilized not because he does not know what he thinks, but because he knows exactly what he thinks.
He believes Democrats need to look mainstream to win swing districts. He believes affordability is a stronger message than ideology. He believes most Americans don’t want a political revolution. And he surely believes that Republicans — from President Donald Trump on down — cannot wait to compel every rival candidate to answer for the most controversial voices inside the Democratic Party.
That has always been the danger of ideological movements. They rarely stay quaintly confined to the neighborhoods where they first emerge. They spread. They redefine brands. They force everyone wearing the same jersey to bear responsibility for the teammates they did not recruit.
This week, such a menace landed squarely on Jeffries’ desk.
The source of the headache was New York City, where Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s stunning Democratic victory last November now has staged a second, hugely consequential act, as three candidates backed by Mamdani — Brad Landler, Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier — won congressional primaries. Valdez and Chevalier are both members of the Democratic Socialists of America.
The victories are significant for reasons that resonate far beyond New York.
For years, the Democratic establishment has comforted itself with the belief that support for democratic socialism was limited to a handful of safe districts represented by colorful personalities who generated cable-news segments but exercised limited influence over the broader direction of the party.
Tuesday suggested something different. Democratic socialists did not merely sustain their corner of the party with fringe support, they expanded it — and expanded it in Jeffries’ own backyard.
It is difficult to overstate the implications of such a predicament for the Democratic leader.
Jeffries is not Bernie Sanders, nor is he Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Rather, Jeffries has spent years carefully cultivating an image as a disciplined institutionalist — a modern Democratic leader capable of appealing to progressives without frightening suburban moderates. His personal politics always have been considerably closer to the political center than to those of the raucous activists in his coalition. He is, by temperament and instinct, a coalition builder.
Coalition builders do not enjoy civil wars. It is a major hurdle for Jeffries to explain and finesse the ballooning faction without detonating a timebomb inside his party.
Almost immediately after Tuesday’s results, reporters and anchors began asking Jeffries his opinion of the new nominees — not whether he supported them, but whether he supported what they unequivocally endorsed. It was an impossible line of questioning precisely because everyone already knew the answer. Jeffries does not believe America should abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement, prisons or the police force. He has never argued for dismantling capitalism, nor has he embraced many of the wider ideological positions associated with the Democratic Socialists of America.
So, he did what experienced political leaders often do when trapped between principle and practicality. He tried to change the subject.
In interview after interview, Jeffries gently, nebulously, acknowledged that he did not share every position or previous statement made by the nominees. He steered the conversation toward affordability, alternate Democratic victories and the overarching national map. It was classic Hakeem Jeffries: polite, measured, disciplined and careful.
But politics rarely allows careful people to remain above the fray forever, and, before long, one of the nominees, Chevalier, became a national story.
Opposition researchers — and increasingly, reporters — began to dredge up years of Chevalier’s social-media posts and public statements, staunchly expressed and clearly defined. She did indeed call for abolishing police and prisons, and argued for eliminating borders and ICE. She harshly, profanely, criticized Kamala Harris and Joe Biden, and decried America as “a f—— disgrace.” Her many posts involving race, white women, and interracial relationships spread rapidly, first across conservative media and then on MSNOW and CNN.
For many, it does not matter that she has deleted and repudiated some of the posts.
One Democratic Party stalwart told me ruefully, “Chevalier is our David Duke. She is poisoning the possibility of a Democratic majority.”
AOC ISSUES WARNING TO HER FELLOW DEMOCRATIC INCUMBENTS IN THE WAKE OF SOCIALISTS WINNING BIG IN NYC
Hakeem Jeffries is balancing party unity with mounting concerns that Democratic Socialists of America-backed candidates could complicate Democrats’ efforts to win swing districts.(Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
But another Democrat familiar with the House caucus, who has been aligned with the progressive wing, offered me an opposing view. “The reality is that the energy of the party in primaries is anti-genocide, anti-billionaire and for Medicare-for-all. Many centrists and House Democratic members are having a hard time coming to terms with this. But that’s where voters primary are. They are unfortunately jamming Jeffries unnecessarily instead of letting him embrace the progressive wing.”
Whether Chevalier’s comments are viewed as youthful activism, sincere ideological conviction or political malpractice, they guarantee one thing: the questions will not stop.
Republicans understood immediately that they had been handed a gift, and Democrats knew every candidate in a competitive district could now expect variations of the same questions: Do you agree with this? Is this your party? Does Chevalier represent today’s Democrats?
Jeffries undoubtedly knew exactly where this was heading. Yet on Saturday afternoon, he nevertheless offered an official welcome to Chevalier, Landler and Valdez with a celebratory post on X.
“Congratulations to our newest members of the NYC congressional delegation,” he wrote. “From public servants to union organizers to community activists, the path is different but the work is the same. We must decisively address the affordability crisis and crush far-right extremism!”
With this statement, Jeffries conceded that his paramount job is to elect a majority, despite the risks to his own reputation, digital and otherwise.
“Jeffries is doing what he needs to do to keep his Democratic caucus as whole as he can,” a veteran Democratic political operative in New York told me. “That means making sure the tent is seen as broadly as it needs to be while moving it into a (hopefully) governing coalition come January. There is no win by holding out and claiming these folks are socialists and therefore not our people. They are going to vote for Jeffries [for Speaker] and we will need their votes for that and much more going forward. And the folks who didn’t get that in last year’s election for Mayor also paid a real price for not recognizing it.”
Even so, moderate Democrats have been urging Jeffries, publicly and privately, to draw sharper distinctions between the party’s mainstream constituency and its socialist wing. Those calls escalated dramatically after Tuesday.
When I asked a spokeswoman for Jeffries about the content and timing of the X post, and how he might respond to those calling for his repudiation of Chevalier and other controversial candidates, she only would say that Jeffries has put out similar congratulatory messages in virtually every race this cycle, on behalf of nominees from every state, background, and ideology.
But that hardly is sufficient for many of the most prominent voices in the party.
Rep. Josh Gottheimer, a leading moderate/centrist Democrat from New Jersey, told Jewish Insider that the socialists’ anti-Israel point of view is a “growing cancer, and we can’t let it spread, and we cannot ignore it.” He warned that the incoming DSA-aligned lawmakers will be coming to Washington to “wreak havoc in Congress” and will try to “hold the party hostage” to their socialist views. “It will lead to more gridlock and dysfunction, and hard-working families will pay the price for this,” he said. “The socialists have put their own personal hatred above our national security and our promises to our allies. And I think we’ve got to call out hate when we see it.”
“This is a bridge too far,” agrees veteran Democratic strategist James Carville, who cautions that embracing candidates whose politics fall well outside the party’s historical mainstream risks alienating precisely the voters Democrats need to regain strong, enduring governing majorities. He dismisses the political views of Chevalier as entirely anathema to the Democratic Party, insisting that “they should not seat her in the caucus. Her views are totally against anything that any Democrat has. We believe in pluralism, she doesn’t believe in interracial dating…Lady, I ain’t in the same party as you…She has attacked interracial relationships and the American flag.” Carville considers this a line in the sand. “I actually do think it’s time for Democrats to talk the S word,” he says. “Schism. I really do. Everybody’s always said, ‘No, no, we’re a coalition. We’re a big tent.’ And there’s some – there’s just some s— that I can’t be in the same tent with.”
Trump himself sees a similarly dire scenario. “The Democrat Party is in big trouble,” he said Friday at the Faith & Freedom Coalition’s policy conference. “Because this isn’t stopping with New York. This is the most serious threat to our country in its existence, in my opinion.”
Jeffries, meanwhile, understands that fear now runs in both directions inside the Democratic Party. Moderate Democrats worry about losing swing voters. Party leaders worry about losing their own base. The activists who dominate many Democratic primaries are intensely engaged, highly organized and deeply angry. They have shown they are willing to target incumbents they regard as insufficiently progressive. Jeffries must have felt a nervous little chill last week at the New York election night victory party. When his image appeared, the DSA celebrants put him on notice with the ominous chant, “You’re next!”
To be sure, this is not the first time Democratic leaders have confronted an insurgency from the party left.
During Donald Trump’s first presidency, Nancy Pelosi was faced with a similar complication with the rise of “the Squad.” New congressional members Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley, independently and as a team, became media stars almost overnight, with their youth, charisma, modern brio, irreverence, and controversial views. Republicans tried relentlessly to define the entire Democratic Party through their most radical statements.
Pelosi’s response was remarkably effective. She did not attempt to defeat them ideologically, but instead, managed them institutionally. She reminded everyone who counted votes, controlled committee assignments, raised money, determined legislative priorities, and possessed the experience and power to turn slogans into laws. When necessary, Pelosi criticized “the Squad, but more often, she simply outmaneuvered them.
Nancy Pelosi understood something that many ideological movements forget. In Congress, power is measured not by followers on social media but by the ability to assemble 218 votes.
Jeffries inherited Pelosi’s position, but he has not inherited Pelosi’s authority. He has never held the Speaker’s gavel, nor spent years disciplining a majority. He has not had to decide which members receive prized committee chairs while balancing dozens of competing factions. Most importantly, he has never governed with a razor-thin Democratic majority.
If Democrats capture the House this November by only a handful of seats, the arithmetic becomes brutal.
Every member and every vote will matter, as will every defection. A bloc of uncompromising ideological members can exercise influence wildly disproportionate to its size. Republicans know this because they lived through it, Kevin McCarthy learned this tough lesson, and Mike Johnson is enduring it now. Jeffries may soon discover it himself.
Which explains why this week’s story matters beyond a handful of New York primaries. The broader struggle inside the Democratic Party has been building for years.
Bernie Sanders demonstrated—twice–that democratic socialism has enormous appeal inside Democratic presidential politics. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez transformed progressive activism into celebrity politics and brand name recognition. Mamdani, magnetic and unapologetic, has shown that the movement can capture America’s largest city.
What makes this movement especially potent is that it has found an organizing principle steeped in emotion that extends well beyond traditional left-right politics. For many younger activists, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially conditions in Gaza, has become not merely a foreign policy issue but a moral litmus test. The language of “genocide,” “apartheid” and “settler colonialism” has moved from campus protests into Democratic primaries, online pressure campaigns, and frequent heckling at live events, creating an intensity that traditional establishment politicians often struggle to comprehend. Whether those characterizations are accepted or fiercely disputed, whether they veer into glib virtue signaling, the political reality is undeniable: arguments over Gaza have become a powerful engine of grassroots activism and candidate recruitment in ways that few Democratic leaders anticipated.
Each DSA victory expands the movement’s confidence and makes compromise less attractive, while increasing pressure on Democratic leaders who must somehow persuade suburban voters that none of this defines the party while simultaneously assuring activists that it absolutely does.
That balancing act has grown more difficult every election cycle, and is teetering on the unsustainable.
And this is not simply Hakeem Jeffries’ problem. Chuck Schumer faces his own version of the same challenge. As the Democratic leader in the Senate, he must deal with his socialist-aligned (and acutely flawed) nominee in Maine, Graham Platner, and with the frontrunner in the August Senate primary in Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed, another Sanders disciple with controversial views.
In many respects, Jeffries and Schumer are tackling what Joe Biden and Kamala Harris sidestepped during their administration. As progressive cultural politics and increasingly strident anti-Israel sentiment spread through elite institutions, universities, activist organizations and social media, the Biden White House generally sought accommodation rather than confrontation. The result was that ideas once largely confined to activist circles migrated steadily, unchecked, into Democratic primaries—not only in New York, but in blue cities, college towns and even pockets of some of America’s reddest states. Leaders who decline to police the boundaries of a coalition eventually discover that someone else has redrawn them.
Perhaps Jeffries hopes the controversy fades.
Washington is certainly capable of changing the subject. Trump is still able to absorb all the oxygen in any room, in any crisis. Inevitably there will be other international emergencies, budget showdowns, political and cultural shiny objects. Jeffries has a few potential lifelines, such as the natural evolution of his peers. AOC, for example, has in recent years become less of a bomb-thrower and more of a legislator. She still sits firmly on the left flank of the party, but she has learned the value of coalition-building, party discipline and picking her spots. Jeffries can reasonably hope that today’s firebrands eventually follow a similar trajectory. The gamble, of course, is that this new generation may conclude that AOC moderated and matured too much. There are already indications of that sentiment.
So, while politics has an extraordinary capacity to move on, this DSA controversy probably won’t. The views of some of these new candidates are simply too extreme, too genuinely insulting to a majority of Americans, too unsavory for citizens who want calm, not drama; common sense, not gauzy, faddish ideology.
There will be more archived posts. More old videos. More awkward interviews. More Republican ads. More questions shouted down Capitol hallways. More uncomfortable television appearances. More brash and polarizing statements. And, if Democrats win the House, more difficult internal negotiations between party leadership and members who see compromise not as governing but as surrender.
JEFFRIES WELCOMES DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS INTO THE FOLD AS CRITICS WARN PARTY IS REVEALING ‘EXACTLY WHO IT IS’
Democratic socialist victories in New York have intensified debate over the Democratic Party’s future and presented Jeffries with a difficult political test.(Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
The larger lesson extends beyond Jeffries. Political parties can survive disagreements and factions, even bitter internal fights. But what presents a deeper threat is the pretense that people who march beneath the same wide banner all are ultimately headed toward the same destination.
The Democratic Party today contains centrists who want to make capitalism work better, progressives who want to regulate it much more aggressively, and democratic socialists who openly question whether capitalism itself should remain the organizing principle of American life. Those are not merely policy disagreements. They are competing visions of the country.
Jeffries knows this.
He also knows that House elections are not won in Park Slope, but in places where swing voters often pay little attention to Congress until a thirty-second television advertisement flashes across the screen showing the most controversial quote imaginable beside the words “Democrat for Congress.” And he knows, that for others, the Democratic establishment and its officeholders are now more unpopular than socialism.
Sometimes leadership is less about choosing between good options than about choosing between bad ones. This week, Hakeem Jeffries, faced with nothing but bad options, chose rhetorical party unity.
It is too soon to say if Jeffries’ choice was clever statesmanship — or simply the first compromise in what assuredly will be a very long negotiation over the future of his party.
_Political analyst and best-selling author Mark Halperin is Editor-in-Chief of the new interactive live video platform_2WAY_.
https://www..com/video/6399373070112