John Fetterman Is the Future of American Liberalism

This Pennsylvania Populist Could Shatter America’s Political Stalemate

Pennsylvania State Capitol

By Sander McComiskey ‘26

John Fetterman, the Democratic Senate candidate in Pennsylvania, is a rising star in American politics. Typified by his casual presentation of baggy shorts and hoodie, Fetterman’s image has been extensively scrutinized in the media, as the 6’6” tattooed former steel town mayor bleeds common-man appeal.

But despite Fetterman’s inimitable persona, focusing solely on personal image misses the deeper, and politically momentous, contours of his candidacy. Most media perspectives seem to dismiss the class-based alignment of the race as manufactured solely by the personas and backgrounds of the candidates, but this misguided narrative risks overlooking the most potentially significant paradigm shift in politics today.

To be sure, the contrast in identity between the candidates is real, and meaningful. Fetterman’s working-class persona contrasted with Oz’s elite carpetbagging celebrity backstory confers a tangible advantage to the Democrat. But a deeper examination of the ideological currents of the race shows the wild potential for electoral success attainable for liberal candidates with the right populist, pro-worker, and pro-family message who demonstrate willingness to moderate on certain toxic social issues, and who frame it all within positioning themselves on the right side of the growing class divide in American society. 

John Fetterman embodies this archetypal candidate to a greater degree than any other current political figure. His combative focus on unions, social programs, and wages all bolster the populist framework of his campaign as he uses Oz’s weakness to paint Republican positions on taxation, abortion, and social spending as actively undermining the interests of working-class Americans. 

Despite Fetterman’s close fit, candidates are ultimately human, and do not conform perfectly to any ideological archetype. There are certainly nuances specific to the Pennsylvania race that could cause Fetterman’s lead to differ from that of an ideal liberal populist in a typical election. Fetterman’s persona is a clear advantage in positioning himself on the right side of the class divide, and Oz’s risible out-of-touchness and crudité foibles further ease the sell. But there is plenty working against Fetterman that other candidates would not have to face, namely running a populist campaign as a Harvard graduate who received protracted financial assistance from his parents, and a serious health scare that would have derailed many lesser politicians’ campaigns. Add to this that Pennsylvania remains an evenly split state in a cycle especially unfriendly to liberal candidates, and it is easy to conclude that the prototypical liberal populist approach has potential for far greater electoral success than Fetterman’s current five point lead in 538’s polling average.

The General Applicability of the Fetterman Strategy

Maybe other candidates lacking Fetterman’s unique blue-collar image would have to work harder to position themselves as working-class champions, but Republican politicians have shown that a populist reputation is attainable from any personal upbringing, as Josh Hawley and Donald Trump can attest. Claiming the populist mantle should be comparatively easy for Democrats, given monumental differences in economic policy directed at working-class Americans.

Such a paradigm shift would not simply be a messaging retool, it would require a candid party-wide assessment of current liberal priorities and their ultimate beneficiaries, and sincere recognition of the democratic importance of public opinion. Much of the current Democratic agenda promotes the right policies necessary to support American workers and families, most visibly in the social policy pushed by the Biden administration, but including traditional liberal stances on issues such as healthcare, taxation, unions, and democratic reform, to name a few. For much of the party’s agenda, all that is necessary is to repackage these assorted policies into an explicit populist message to be placed at the core of the party’s identity.

However, certain liberal positions and messaging tactics are not consistent with this populist appeal. Hard-line positions on social issues out of step with supermajorities of the populace cripple liberals’ ability to fashion themselves the defenders of ordinary Americans. Bucking special interests like teachers’ unions, accepting serious regulation of pornography, fervently encouraging families through economic policy, recognizing legitimate interests in promoting competition in women’s athletics, and placing the social and economic crises in rural America at the center of political discourse are just a few of the shifts in policy that would show every American that Democrats truly value their interests.

Furthermore, Democrats need to take this message to locales that currently never receive it, despite the immense benefits it could bring to their communities. Fetterman’s work in reaching across rural Pennsylvania, as well as the organizing done in Maine by State Senator Chloe Maxmin shows the enormous potential for the liberal populist message when packaged for rural communities, if Democrats commit the resources to deliver it.

Addressing Common Misconceptions of Liberal Populism

A crucial distinction to make in advocating for a populist Democratic party is to distinguish this vision from a separate “popularist” agenda proposed most notably by David Shor, wherein Democrats need only moderate their unpopular positions and carry on with business as usual. This oversimplified strategy underestimates the considerable heterodoxy of the median voter and the upshot is the worst of both worlds, as liberals would be forced to abandon important issues while seeing no substantial increase in electoral success. To compare the electoral popularity of an archetypal popularist candidate with that of a populist, look no farther than the primary blowout of moderate Conor Lamb at the hands of the prodigal son of liberal populism.

A true populist shift will involve restructuring traditional policy, interests, and political exigence, not a tweak in messaging. Additionally, this vision leaves abounding room for good, progressive policy, as long as it fits the paradigm and operates in the interest of working-class Americans. In this way, the prescription is more similar to ideas promoted by David Brooks recently in The New York Times, imagining a candidate who recognizes the brokenness of American institutions and promotes a populist economic platform while identifying with Americans of all races and locales who have been left behind by unfettered neoliberalism in forms both economic and social.

This prescription in no way discourages combative approaches to important social issues, as Fetterman has displayed in his broadsides against anti-LGBTQ sentiment and support for abortion rights and marijuana legalization. Sweeping progressive change is integral to this framework, as long as it fits the stricture of improving the lives of working-class and average Americans.

Instead, what this prescription might encourage is loudly disavowing a few progressive positions in certain areas, something Fetterman has dipped his toes into with wavering opposition to a ban on fracking, but has largely refrained from. This is most likely because with Fetterman’s current polling margin, it probably is not necessary to win the seat.

Total student debt cancellation is a perfect example of the kind of progressive policy discouraged under this populist political calculus, bracketing its policy merits, as it is widely viewed as a handout to a Democratic special interest in college graduates, and strengthens Republican portrayals of liberals as privileged coastal elites.

This new populist Democratic party would have the potential for electoral success on scale with the 2008 elections, but with a more durable coalition. It would focus on attracting working class voters of all races to a big tent party, as the well-educated are, at this moment in American politics, an immobile portion of the liberal coalition due to their progressive social values and complete antipathy towards the Republican party. 

But beyond these political calculations, a compelling normative argument can be made in favor of the benefits of liberal populism to the average American when contrasted with current Democratic ideology. Complete concession to postliberal thinkers such as Patrick Deneen is not necessary to understand that unfettered social deregulation and a degradation of societal guide rails can be as damaging to vulnerable populations as parallel economic policies. A liberalism that understands this truth, and works to better every facet of Americans’ lives, not just line their pocketbook, is not just more electable, but more desirable.

However, accepting the normative good of this approach is ultimately irrelevant to support a populist restructuring of American liberalism. A simple pragmatic analysis would recognize the massive electoral potential of this coalition to bring about the structural progressive change that liberals yearn for, as a Democratic party built around the tenets of liberal populism is the most effective delivery model for the crucial reforms Democrats want so desperately for American society.