'A dirtbag is better than a fascist': Inside the moral compromise Dems won't admit to

Some progressive Democrats are of the opinion that Donald Trump has changed American politics so fundamentally – that the system is now so corrupt and the dangers to liberal democracy are now so severe – that questions of moral character no longer count like they used to. As one progressive Democrat recently told NOTUS, "I get really tired of Democrats being held to some lofty moral standard when Republicans are just ‘boys will be boys.'"

Therefore, for instance, if there's a chance for the Democratic Party to take back control of the United States Senate, it shouldn't matter that Maine's Democratic primary winner Graham Platner lied about being a "working-class Mainer"; lied about not knowing about the origins of his Nazi tattoo; cheated on his wife by sexting as many as a dozen women; allegedly abused and acted violently toward former girlfriends; among other scandals.

"I think when you look at politics in general, there are no saints in the United States Senate," US Senator Bernie Sanders, a progressive, told CBS News Monday. "People can argue about this aspect of Graham or another, but to my mind right now, we need allies in the United States Senate who have the guts to take on the big money that is dominating this country."

In other words, he may be a dirtbag, but he's not a fascist.

So it's OK to elect a dirtbag.

But it's not OK and we all know it.

That's why some progressive Democrats are spinning Platner's story so he doesn't look like a dirtbag but a man of integrity who struggled to overcome his past and redeem himself. California Congressman Ro Khanna appeared at a campaign rally in Maine the day after the Times reported on Platner’s toxic behavior toward numerous former girlfriends. One of them alleged that "this person does not respect women" while another alleged that he physically assaulted her and that he knew his tattoo was a Totenkopf, because he told her what it was.¹

"Khanna’s appearance [during last week's Platner rally] was an exercise in tightrope walking," according to Politico this morning, "simultaneously condemning Platner’s behavior while espousing faith in the former Marine’s redemption from troubled times in his past."

Khanna told the same redemption story on "Face the Nation": "His actions were misogynist. They were shameful. They were wrong," he said, "but ... he took accountability. He himself has said it was shameful and he had redemption. And now he’s running on a platform of national health insurance, while Susan Collins is voting to cut it. He’s talking about taxing billionaires. Susan Collins is for tax breaks to billionaires. And he’s opposed to this foreign war where Susan Collins supported the war in Iran. That’s why I’m still supporting him."

Khanna's redemption story sounds convincing, but it runs into the fact that Platner cheated on his wife throughout 2024, years after his "dark period" in the aftermath of the Iraq War. PTSD might have explained, for instance, Reddit posts blaming victims of rape for the crimes against them, but what explains his bad judgment and untrustworthy behavior now?

The redemption story also runs into the fact that Platner never accepted full responsibility for his Nazi tattoo. He claims he did not know what it was, only that it was a skull and crossbones. But even if he didn't know at the time he got it, in 2007, he knew by 2009. That year he tried to return to active duty service. The Marine Corps' anti-hate symbol policy would have meant that an enlistment officer explained what it was and why it prevented him from returning. (Importantly, he could have, at that point, chosen to cover it up, but did not.)

The Washington press corps often compares Graham Platner to the president. Platner won yesterday's Democratic Senate primary in Maine despite his baggage, much as Trump won the White House twice despite his. But the men are not comparable. Trump is a sadist who wants to hurt people whom he believes are weaker than him, as do allies like Ken Paxton in Texas. Their vision for themselves is an America that's structured from the top down, with rich white Christian men dominating everyone under them. They will use force if they get the chance. They don't wear Totenkopfs on their skin, but they are fascists to the bone.

There seems to be a broad disinclination to admit openly that "a dirtbag is better than a fascist," even though that's a pretty good argument in favor of voting for Platner.

Platner isn't of that ilk. He's a talker, a bull------- a man who failed at adulthood but found compensation in the pleasures of saying shocking things. (A former girlfriend told the Times that he once said "if anybody ever broke in here, I would rape them.” She recalled him adding "not in a gay way.” “He was like, I would rape them to show them that I’m dominant,” she said.)

I agree with this characterization from a Bluesky account I follow: "I don't think Graham Platner is a Nazi. I think he's a dumbass edgelord who fetishizes violence and 'dominance,' and on account of being a dumbass edgelord, [he] is critically vulnerable to slopulism and Hitler particles." I also agree with Public Notice's David Lurie, who said: "He is no Nazi ... He is, however, a dirtbag, and was proud of it until opportunity knocked. Then he became mendacious about it." He is, as the Times' Jamelle Bouie put it, more on "the John Fetterman continuum than he is on the Trump continuum, which is just, eh, kind of dirtbaggy."

It's worth asking why such candor is missing in progressive discourse about Platner. There seems to be a broad disinclination to admit openly that "a dirtbag is better than a fascist," even though that's a pretty good argument in favor of voting for Platner. (Susan Collins may not be a fascist, but she supports pogroms.) Instead, there are endless attempts to overlook the obvious in the hopes that he will bring change to the Democratic Party, therefore change to America. “His wife stands by him, and I don’t think we have any option but to trust that at this point,” one Democratic voter told NOTUS. "The tattoo, the sexting — which I thought was ridiculous as far as an issue — and a couple other things, they don’t look good, but he’s a realized man,” another said. "In a way it’s, ‘Do you believe in redemption?’” said another.

Of all people, Bernie Sanders comes off as the most sincere of Platner's progressive supporters. Instead of phony redemption stories, he suggested that the United States Senate is full of dirtbags and asked: Who cares about them when America needs the courage "to take on the big money that is dominating this country"? The problem, of course, is one of faith. If Mainers send Platner to the Senate, can they trust their dirtbag to fight the other dirtbags?

Platner's progressive supporters are right to chafe at comparisons between Platner and Trump, as they are morally distinct, but their man still benefits from the comparison, as it provides cover for questions of character and integrity that would otherwise dog him, and the questions of judgment and trustworthiness that are a consequence of that. Instead, they can shout "vote blue no matter who" without taking full responsibility for their goals. It's better to tell tall tales about redemption while blaming Trump for the overall degradation of politics. Fact is, however, character still counts, for a lot, but in pretending that it doesn't, Platner's progressives end up playing by the rules of fascism even as they claim to fight it.