By Michael Kelman Portney

In today’s political climate, we often see liberal media commentators and establishment politicians stepping forward to defend the current system. They present themselves as champions of progress and stability, arguing that they’re the last line of defense against the chaos of the right. But as Democrats, when we hear them defending the status quo, it’s essential to ask ourselves: Whose interests are they really protecting? Are they genuinely advocating for the people, or are they securing their own entrenched power?

When establishment figures defend the current system, they often claim it’s for the sake of progress, stability, or national unity. Yet too often, defending the system actually means upholding a system that benefits a select few—often including those defending it. Behind these appeals to stability and unity can be an implicit defense of privilege, power, and influence that these insiders don’t want to relinquish.

Why Should We Be Skeptical?

1. They’ve Already Benefited from the System: Many establishment politicians and commentators have built entire careers on the existing structures. They’ve mastered the system and gained access to power within it. While they might claim they’re acting in the public’s best interest, it’s worth considering that they’re also protecting the system that has been very good to them. Their motivation may include preserving a structure that has allowed them to succeed, regardless of whether it benefits everyday Americans.

2. Resistance to Real Change: If these establishment figures truly had the best interests of the people at heart, they would be more willing to support transformative change, not just incremental adjustments. When they dismiss more progressive reforms or downplay calls for change, they’re not just advocating for stability—they’re resisting anything that might shake their power base.

3. Self-Preservation Over Principles: We often see this in media and political circles, where establishment voices criticize those pushing for more radical reforms, suggesting that “now is not the time” or that certain changes are “unrealistic.” But these arguments are often less about practicality and more about preserving a system that rewards caution and conformity. This is a call for self-preservation, not for progress.

Signs to Watch For

When establishment figures defend the status quo, look for these signs to help gauge their true motives:

Defensive Language About Institutions: When they frame critiques of current institutions as attacks on democracy itself, it’s a red flag. Healthy democracies should withstand criticism and adapt, not be frozen in fear of reform.

Selective Support of Reforms: They may selectively support popular reforms while ignoring or minimizing systemic changes that would disrupt entrenched power structures.

Frequent Appeals to Fear: If they’re constantly framing progressives or reformers as “too radical,” they’re often playing on fear rather than engaging in constructive debate. Fear-based arguments are effective at protecting power because they make change seem dangerous.

How to Approach Establishment Figures with Healthy Skepticism

When we encounter these voices, we can be open-minded but also discerning. It’s possible that some establishment figures genuinely believe in the need for stability—but we should always ask who benefits from maintaining the current system. Are their actions truly about helping the public, or are they a calculated defense of the status quo that allows them to stay in power?

Establishment Democrats who want our trust need to demonstrate that they’re willing to support real reforms, not just pay lip service to change. We should demand transparency and accountability from those who claim to represent us. It’s not enough for them to say they’re defending democracy or protecting progress; we need to see concrete actions that show they’re on the side of the people, not just protecting their own power.

The Bottom Line: Question Their Motives

If we, as Democrats, want a party that truly represents the people, we need to be willing to question those who defend the status quo. When we see establishment figures arguing against change or framing progressives as radicals, we should look carefully at their motives. Defending the system as-is often means defending their own place within it. If we truly want progress, we need to be unafraid to ask: Who does this system benefit? And Who is standing in the way of the change we need?

By approaching establishment defenders with this healthy skepticism, we can ensure that our party remains focused on the needs of the people, not just on protecting entrenched power.