No Time for Hasan
The Democratic Party can't stop shooting itself in the foot.
Recently, leftist influencer Hasan Piker has featured prominently in the mainstream and semi-mainstream news cycles. Last year, the New York Times described him as a “progressive mind in a MAGA body”, and NPR asked if he was the “gateway drug” for young men to get into leftism. More recently, he’s gotten profiles in Vox, Slate, The New Republic, and even the Guardian. All of these are generally neutral if not favorable, suggesting that Democrats could well benefit from a voice that can so easily appeal to young men.
If you’re unfamiliar with Hasan Piker, he is essentially the leftist version of Nick Fuentes: equally anti-semitic and equally anti-America. No, really: Hasan is on the record saying America deserved 9/11 and is a vocal supporter of Hamas, the communist Cuban regime, and the CCP. (Horseshoe theory might be the realest thing ever.) He’s also a self-described socialist, advocating rent control and other rote leftist policies, all with a bent towards violent, radical rhetoric. (As usual, ye shall know them by their fashion choices.)
A few months ago, the online right went through a bit of a tussle over how big the “tent” should be. Essentially, should a right-wing, MAGA coalition be large enough to include individuals with the increasingly radical and transgressive views of a Nick Fuentes or a Tucker Carlson, or should the movement cut such figures off to preserve a semblance of decency and respect? Is the opportunity to reach these influencers’ respective audiences worth the damage they could cause?
With Hasan, the Democratic Party finds itself in a similar quandary. Desperate (publicly) for their own version of a Joe Rogan, a common-man type of influencer who can help their dismal relationship with America’s young men, there is a legitimate discussion among mainstream Democratic voices as to whether Democrats should campaign alongside Hasan. Some prominently leftist Democrats have appeared on his show (including AOC, Ro Khanna, Ilhan Omar, and Zohran Mamdani).
There are two strong arguments against platforming Hasan and his ilk. The first is practical. Hasan will not help the Democrats win elections. He will not successfully appeal to unreached voter classes. He will not convince voters Dems are something they are not. He will not bring in more voters than he costs them. The 2024 election was not a landslide, but it should have been — for Democrats. If Trump 2016 and 2020 was a bad candidate (and he was), he certainly wasn’t any better by 2024. But the American people chose him over Kamala Harris, because they saw her as too far to the left. Even now, with Trump’s approval ratings cataclysmically low, the Democratic Party is still a few points behind the Republicans in voter approval (28 to 32).
This is the image, deserved or not, that Democrats need to fix, not reinforce. When voters see you as radical leftists, the solution is not to move further to the left, even if it would please a vocally online minority. Platforming Hasan would throw free gasoline on the Republicans’ campaign fire. A plethora of reprehensible clips1 would be broadcast all over cable TV, displaying, in his own words, the type of figure Democrats had partnered with this time. In fact, they already are. Hasan is a caricature of what your Fox-News-beholden elderly relatives believe Democrats to be, but he’s a real-life person propounding these views to a real-life (albeit niche) following.2
The second reason not to promote Hasan is that it would be bad. It would be wrong. Hasan Piker is not an admirable character. He is not a thoughtful individual. He does not care for our government or our nation. His language is puerile and his views inexcusable. This is not the sort of person Americans want anywhere near our positions of power or influence. Sound familiar? Democrats’ main advantage in the coming elections is Donald Trump and the poor job he is doing in the presidency. Their pitch is to reinstate a semblance of competency in the federal government (and not much else).
Hasan’s views are not shared by the majority of Democrats. That is a good thing! That is a positive for Democrats, and for all of us. Publicly condemning this sort of radical anti-American behavior should be routine and unremarkable if they are the party of reasonable, centrist government they want and need to be perceived as. (And it’s not like they haven’t. Here’s CNN doing so.)But the fact that this is even a debate reflects poorly on them (as the Fuentes debate did Republicans). Democrats should be seeking to prove the lesser-of-two-evils Trump voter wrong, not right.
The Democratic Party has been a rudderless ship since Obama’s presidency ended, held hostage by the most radical minorities inside and outside of it. Any prominence it gives to Hasan Piker is emblematic of that. America benefits from healthy political parties that can police the most unsavory influences from within, or would, if it had any. Rebuffing Hasan and his influence should be a no-brainer, just as it was for Nick Fuentes on the right. It is both the practical and the moral thing to do.
It was very easy to do research for this article
Hasan is a product of the online world. His real-world reach is mercifully small, for now. (Furthermore, it is fairly easy to artificially inflate streaming metrics, and several foreign governments have incentives to support his brand of commentary. But I digress.)