Democrats’ growing radicalism presents a danger to the country. Their shrinking ability to conceal it presents a danger to the party.

As democratic socialists and other far-left candidates win Democratic primaries, the mask of moderation is slipping. The establishment media can downplay radical policies when they belong to activists, backbenchers, or losing candidates. It becomes much harder when those candidates begin winning elections.

The Democratic Party’s greatest political danger is not that the party features a rapidly growing number of radicals. It’s that ordinary Americans are finally getting a clear look at them.

The Graham Platner debacle in Maine shows both how much extremism Democrats will tolerate and how long the media will help them avoid confronting it.

Platner was sold as an acceptable working-class populist. His carefully cultivated image as an oyster farmer obscured his privileged background and family support. He disparaged fellow veterans, blamed military service for a history of incendiary online statements, and sent explicit messages to women while married. His policy positions occupied the party’s farthest-left edge. Then came the Nazi tattoo and a series of preposterous explanations.

Democrats, their leaders, and sympathetic media outlets stood by him through it all.

Only after a woman publicly accused Platner of sexual assault did his campaign finally collapse. Platner denied the allegation, but leading supporters withdrew their endorsements, and he announced plans to leave the race.

The episode illustrates two problems: Democrats’ willingness to embrace radicalism in nearly any form and the establishment media’s willingness to disguise that radicalism.

The second may ultimately prove more damaging to the party.

How can appearance be more dangerous than reality? Because the Democratic Party has been moving left for years while much of the press assured Americans that it remained broadly moderate.

Bernie Sanders nearly defeated Hillary Clinton for the 2016 presidential nomination. Two members of the Democratic Socialists of America entered Congress with “the Squad” in 2018. Under the figurehead leadership of Joe Biden, the administration pursued diversity mandates, radical climate policies, uncontrolled spending, and an open southern border.

RELATED: This is not the ‘red wave’ America needs

Aimee Dilger/SOPA Images/LightRocket/Getty Images

The establishment media minimized those policies, just as it concealed Biden’s cognitive decline until his political usefulness expired. Once Biden became obviously unelectable, Democrat leaders and their media allies turned on him.

The same thing happened to Platner. The party tolerated everything until his liabilities threatened its electoral prospects.

In both cases, the candidate was expendable. The ideology remained.

Democratic radicalism is becoming more visible because the party and its media allies can no longer hide it. As more moderate Democrats lose primaries, the press must cover the candidates replacing them.

American political journalism has always preferred the horse race to the substance: polls, debates, endorsements, fundraising, and election-night results. Those subjects are more exciting — and less revealing — than sustained scrutiny of what candidates intend to do in office.

But the horse race becomes a problem when the socialists are winning it.

In 2025, self-described socialists Zohran Mamdani and Katie Wilson won the mayoralties of New York City and Seattle.

More recently, Mamdani-backed candidates swept prominent New York congressional primaries. Former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander defeated incumbent Rep. Dan Goldman, while other left-wing candidates unseated Democrat establishment figures.

In Texas, far-left state Rep. James Talarico won the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate. In Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed has emerged as a leading contender in the Democratic Senate primary.

More victories may follow as the primary season continues.

Each one forces the media to cover candidates it would previously have dismissed as activists on the party’s fringe. As establishment Democrats disappear from ballots, journalists have fewer supposedly moderate alternatives to place in the foreground.

RELATED: Democratic Socialists of America will seek to RADICALLY upend the federal government in reported platform update

Adam Gray/Bloomberg/Getty Images

The problem becomes even more severe in heavily Democratic districts, where winning the primary is effectively equivalent to winning the general election.

Those nominees are highly likely to enter Congress, join Sanders and “the Squad,” and pull congressional Democrats farther left. Their anti-Trump agenda will give them a national platform over the next two years, making their positions increasingly difficult to ignore.

The establishment media can soften the language. It can call socialism “progressivism,” describe government control as “investment,” and portray ideological victories as demands for affordability or generational change.

It cannot indefinitely hide what elected officials say and do.

That is the Democratic Party’s greatest political danger. It’s not merely that the party features a rapidly growing number of radicals. It’s that ordinary Americans are finally getting a clear look at them.

For years, the establishment media helped Democrats preserve the appearance of moderation while the party moved steadily left. Socialist victories are making that deception impossible.

​Bernie sanders, Democratic socialists, Democrats, Graham platner, Media, Moderation, Primaries, Hillary clinton, The squad, Congress, Opinion & analysis, Leftism, Anti-american 

What is real?

I know that sounds like I’m trying to “blow your mind, man.” But I don’t mean it in some kind of hippy-dippy, dorm-room philosophizing kind of way.

They want a place where they know they’ll be seeing the world as it is, where they can drop their defenses against being fooled.

In 2026, “What is real?” is a very pressing question.

Won’t get fooled again

If you’ve spent any time on X, Instagram, or Facebook, you’ve probably gotten used to thinking about reality. Namely when coming across the countless AI-generated photos and videos flooding your timeline.

Some, of course, are obviously fake. A penguin shaking hands with a polar bear on a dock while a moose looks on from a sailboat? Most likely AI. But with others it’s not so easy.

Take that photo of the beautiful sunrise over those shining snow-covered mountains. Looks real … but it isn’t. Neither is that perfectly convincing woman talking about the scheduling app that helped her organize her life.

Unless you are exceedingly discerning, you’ve probably been fooled by AI, even if just for a few seconds. You shouldn’t feel bad, and you shouldn’t feel like a dupe, even though you probably do. We weren’t made for this world of images that look 99.99999% real but are 0% so. What in our past would have ever prepared us for this world? Seeing is believing? That may have been true once upon a time, but no more.

Shutter island

There are a lot of implications here for society. How do we live in a half reality, half anti-reality world? How do we organize a society around truth when the truth is constantly muddied by false images and videos? How do we even talk to each other if we can’t reach a consensus on what’s in front of us? These are big questions without clear answers.

But on a smaller, more granular, human level, I think something interesting is happening: People find themselves aching for more truth, more reality. Not everyone, of course. Some are going full steam into the Kafkaesque world of reality-nihilism. But others see the trap, the chaos, and the shallow ugliness of anti-reality.

Earlier this year, I started a project by the name of Film 20. Essentially, it’s a place of pure reality in the form of film photography. It’s an archive of photos from real people and real places all around the world. No iPhone photos are allowed, no digital photos from DSLRs either. Only film; only reality.

RELATED: The Kids Are Outside

O.W. Root

Reality hunger

At first, our followers were mostly film photographers and film aficionados. But an interesting thing happened in the past few months. The account blew up in a substantial way. There are now nearly 29,000 people following Film 20, an account dedicated to documenting reality through the eyes of film photographers.

Those 29,000 people aren’t all photographers, though some are — our DMs are flooded with submissions from wonderful photographers from all over. They aren’t just following for the nice photos either. I know because the primary sources of growth have been derived from posts underscoring the purpose of Film 20.

“Never AI. Always reality. Only film.”

People — 29,000 people — want a feed of reality and only reality. They want a place where they know they’ll be seeing the world as it is, where they can drop their defenses against being fooled.

Cultivating authenticity

I know that everyone doesn’t have this same kind of yearning for reality. I understand that these 29,000 are not representative of the general population in 2026. But I don’t think this desire is going away, and I don’t think the awareness of the shallow falseness of digital AI imagery is a short-term blip. The further we move into the AI world, the stronger this yearning for reality will be.

The bleed of fake video and imagery into every corner of our digital world will continue for the foreseeable future. It will be annoying. Next year you will only see more fake videos than the last.

So whether it is film photography, live music, local food, or real people with real emotions, the future of reality is one that will need to be cultivated and earnestly sought out. Just like we try to eat healthy and read good books, we will need to consciously make the choices that lead us toward reality in every way we can.

Reality is good for the body, mind, and soul.

​Ai, Community, Film, Reality, Iphone, Photography, Cameras, Film photography, Fake, Culture, Art, The root of the matter 

The left is in hysterics after the Texas State Board of Education approved new K-12 language arts curriculum standards for the 2030-2031 school year that include specific Bible stories and verses as required reading. Even though the board justified it as essential literary and cultural education rather than religious instruction, cries of “religious favoritism” and “separation of church and state” are dominating left-wing media.

“If you turn on CNN or the BBC or the Guardian or PBS, NBC, any of them, honestly, you’d think Texas had just crowned Jesus king of Texas and ordered every public school child to genuflect before a Bible on their teacher’s desk,” scoffs Glenn Beck.

The truth, however, is that these standards do not in any way breach the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. They simply re-tether America — and the broader West — to her founding principles.

“There is no mandate to put a physical Bible in every classroom. There’s no statewide requirement for devotional prayer or forced religious exercises. … It’s literacy and historic study,” Glenn explains.

He points to the 1963 Supreme Court case Abington School District v. Schempp, in which the court ruled 8-1 that mandatory devotional Bible reading and prayer as opening religious exercises in public schools violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, while explicitly noting that objective, academic study of the Bible (for its literary and historic qualities) as part of a secular education program is permissible.

“Texas is not becoming a theocracy,” says Glenn. “They are walking through a door the Supreme Court left wide open and that our founders walked through with conviction.”

In 1782, Congress even officially endorsed the Aitken Bible (the first complete English-language Bible printed in the United States) for both religious study and literacy advancement in schools.

“One of the very first things that our representatives did … was to put the Bible in the hands of American families and schools,” says Glenn. “That’s not Christian nationalism. That’s the actual founding character of our republic.”

For most of American history, he explains, the Bible was not only “not controversial in schools” but actually seen as “central” to public education.

The McGuffey Readers, first published in the 1830s by educator William Holmes McGuffey, were hugely popular 19th-century American schoolbooks that taught reading, morality, and character through stories, poems, and excerpts that heavily featured the Bible alongside classic literature.

“Children learned to read from the Bible. They learned character from the Bible. That was normal,” says Glenn. “What happened in the 1960s — that was the radical break, not Texas 2026.”

Texas, he argues, is “right” to require Bible readings because students “cannot understand Western civilization,” including its most cherished literature, without it.

“Remove the Bible and half of Shakespeare goes dark. Try reading Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost.’ … Try to understand Dante’s ‘Divine Comedy.’ … You cannot understand ‘Pilgrim’s Progress,’ ‘Moby Dick,’ ‘The Scarlet Letter,’ Dostoevsky’s novels of sin and redemption — any of this,” Glenn exclaims.

Other forms of art crucial to the West become inaccessible too.

From Michelangelo’s “The Creation of Adam” and da Vinci’s “Last Supper” to European cathedrals and the great concertos, sonatas, and symphonies of Bach and Beethoven, the Bible is preeminent to the West’s greatest artistic achievements.

“The Ten Commandments are woven into the Western legal codes. … You don’t understand the Declaration of Independence if you don’t understand the Bible. You don’t understand the abolition movement in Britain and America … Lincoln, the second inaugural address — what is that other than just one giant biblical meditation on sin and judgment and mercy?” Glenn adds, emphasizing Scripture’s foundational role in Western history.

“Trying to understand Western civilization — the art, the literature, the music, its laws, its ethics, the very language — without the Bible is trying to understand the Middle East without the Quran. It is the foundational text; remove it, and the culture becomes incoherent,” he declares.

He warns that when a civilization becomes untethered to its foundation, everything begins to unravel.

“The morals drift; the art loses meaning; the law loses anchor; and most importantly — and don’t the progressives know it — the people lose their story,” he laments. “That’s what’s been happening for 60 years in American education.”

Glenn praises Texas for bringing Scripture back into academics where it rightfully belongs. “They are doing what they must do: simply refusing to continue the lie that the Bible is irrelevant to who we are.”

To hear more, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, Texas, Bible, Education 

They can give you a gun and a badge. They cannot give you good judgment.

The Fort Worth Police Department gave Sarah Stogner both a gun and a badge. What it apparently failed to determine was whether she possessed the judgment — or the constitutional literacy — required to exercise the state’s coercive power over free citizens.

Sarah Stogner did not shoot anybody, thank God. But that’s an extraordinarily low bar for fitness to exercise state power.

The controversy arose during Fort Worth’s Trinity Pride celebration on June 27, where Christian street preachers were evangelizing outside the event.

Video shows Stogner telling one preacher he could be cited if he said something “offensive.” City officials later emphasized that the citation itself was based on a noise ordinance governing amplified sound, not the content of the preacher’s message.

Sure.

The department then ordered First Amendment retraining after the encounter went viral.

Those facts may determine the outcome in court. They do not change what thousands of people on social media saw with their own eyes: a police officer confidently asserting authority the Constitution does not give her.

The retraining is welcome, I suppose. It also adds insult to injury.

What are they teaching at the police academy these days? This was not some obscure Fourth Amendment exception or a tangled question of qualified immunity.

This was constitutional law 101.

Americans do not lose their right to speak because somebody — a cop especially — dislikes what they have to say. Giving offense is not a crime. Hurt feelings do not create probable cause. The First Amendment does not contain a Pride festival exception. Yet.

What struck me most, however, was not Stogner’s ignorance. It was her arrogance.

She never appeared uncertain. She never asked a supervisor for guidance. She never paused to consider whether she was inventing a speech code on the spot.

RELATED: Blue cities reject law, reject order — and reject America

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI/AFP/Getty Images

She spoke as if the badge settled the question.

That’s worse than stupidity.

A stupid officer can be corrected. An arrogant officer believes correction is for everybody else.

A badge is not a moral credential. It is a legal office.

It does not make its bearer wiser, more virtuous, or more trustworthy. It confers authority — massive authority — within limits established by law.

For years, conservatives have rightly defended law enforcement against the left’s poisonous campaign to “defund the police.” They have recognized the indispensable role police play in maintaining civil order, protecting innocent people, and arresting violent criminals.

They have also rightly rejected the left’s habit of judging an entire profession by its worst actors.

But somewhere along the way, respect curdled into deference.

“Back the blue” became less a defense of lawful policing than a demand for unquestioning loyalty to anyone wearing a badge. Conservatives who instinctively distrust IRS agents, public health officials, and federal regulators somehow came to regard local police as natural allies in the defense of liberty.

That is a dangerous mistake.

Police officers are not the conservative movement in blue uniforms. They are not constitutional scholars with Glocks. They are government employees exercising delegated power.

“Protect and serve” is a worthy ideal. It’s also good marketing.

Every bureaucracy develops its own interests, habits, and institutional mythology. Every bureaucracy eventually divides the world into “us” and “them.”

Police departments are no exception.

Officers spend their days giving commands, issuing citations, conducting searches, making arrests, and using force when necessary. They are trained to establish control and treat uncertainty as a potential threat.

Much of that is unavoidable. Police work is dangerous. Hesitation can get an officer killed.

But the habits required for survival can become habits of mind.

The citizen becomes the subject. Disagreement becomes defiance. Questions become challenges to authority. The officer acts; the public is acted upon.

A Bible, a flag, or a thin blue line decal will not save you when an officer decides you are the problem. Neither will your voting record. The state does not ask whether you backed the blue before it puts you in handcuffs.

Do not misunderstand me. This is not an argument against police. It is an argument against political idolatry.

Conservatives understand, at least in theory, that government power must be constrained because human beings are fallible, self-interested, and prone to abuse authority.

We remember that principle when discussing the FBI, the IRS, or unelected regulators. We remember it when federal agents raid somebody’s home or some public health official invents a mandate.

Then a local officer puts on body armor, and suddenly half the right forgets everything it claims to believe about the state.

The uniform changes. The principle doesn’t.

Police exercise executive power. They carry the state’s monopoly on lawful violence on their hips.

That is precisely why they deserve more scrutiny, not less.

RELATED: Democratic Senate candidate can’t hide from ‘defund the police’ comments, no matter how hard he tries

Sarah Rice/Getty Images

A DMV clerk can ruin your afternoon. A police officer can ruin your life.

That power requires more than tactical training, physical courage, or marksmanship. It requires judgment. More than anything, it requires humility.

An officer must never forget that the badge does not create rights. It imposes limits.

The Constitution does not exist to make police work easier. It exists in part to prevent government officials from doing whatever seems easiest in the moment.

A citizen saying something offensive may cause some heartburn. A loud preacher may irritate festival-goers, businesses, officers, and city officials. None of that gives police authority to suppress protected speech.

Enforce the noise ordinance if the facts support it. But do not allow the police to invent an offended listener’s veto.

Good officers understand the distinction. Good departments reinforce it. Good conservatives should insist upon it.

The answer is not hostility toward law enforcement. The left has already demonstrated the stupidity and destructiveness of treating every cop as an occupying soldier.

The answer is constitutional realism.

Support police when they uphold the law. Defend them when they are unfairly maligned. Hold them accountable when they exceed their authority.

But stop pretending they belong to us.

They are not supposed to serve conservatives, progressives, Pride organizers, or street preachers.

They are supposed to serve the law.

When they forget that, another training seminar may satisfy the public relations department. It does not answer the more serious question.

Should someone who must be retrained on the basic meaning of the First Amendment continue to carry a gun, a badge, and the public’s trust?

Sarah Stogner did not shoot anybody, thank God. But that’s an extraordinarily low bar for fitness to exercise state power.

They can give you a gun and a badge. They cannot give you judgment.

And when an officer displays arrogance instead, conservatives should not avert their eyes simply because the uniform is blue.

​Constitution, First amendment, Fourth amendment, Police officer, Violent criminals, Fort worth, Sarah stogner, Pride celebration, Texas, Opinion & analysis