Most great institutions are less vulnerable to the dangers of external assault than they are to crumbling from within. So it proves to be with the current Democratic Party, which runs an infinitesimal risk of being broken by its political opponents, but a much more serious risk of being broken by its own internal dissenters — or, more accurately, revolutionaries. The Democratic “establishment” understands this problem, but that does not mean it has the solution.

The problem was evident in the New York Democratic primaries last month, when candidates affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and endorsed by left-wing Mayor Zohran Mamdani upset several incumbents in safe seats to expand the far-Left cohort in Washington. NYC-DSA co-chair Gustavo Gordillo explained in an interview that the DSA doesn’t “agree” with “the way the Democratic Party establishment organizes or runs its party apparatus” and plans to organize its own subversive architecture from within.

The same dynamic characterized David Hogg’s short stint as Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in early 2025. Hogg’s election to the role was the result of a left-wing revolt against party leaders. But Hogg never wanted the duties of the position to which he was elected — helping get Democrats elected instead of Republicans across the country. Instead, Hogg wanted to help far-Left Democrats oust more moderate ones, and when it became clear that such activity was incompatible with his DNC post, he left.

But most analysis of the contest between the radicals and the Democratic Party establishment neglects to define a key term: what is the establishment?

Earlier this month, former DNC chair Jaime Harrison scorched a left-wing account on X for using the term without care for accuracy. “I’m tired of this lazy ‘establishment’ b*******. It’s become a substitute for making an actual argument,” he protested.

“If someone has experience, they’re ‘establishment.’ If they’ve built relationships, they’re ‘establishment.’ If they’ve won elections, passed legislation, or know how government actually works, they’re ‘establishment,’” he summarized the common critiques. “No. They’re Democrats who have put in the work. You don’t build a stronger party by treating experience like a liability or pretending everyone who came before you is the enemy. You build it by respecting those who’ve laid the foundation while welcoming new leaders who are ready to add to it.”

“Everything shiny and new ain’t gold,” Harrison concluded. Did he have Mamdani specifically in mind?

Harrison was responding to an account with the name Christo Rixman, whose user described himself as “Just another guy deconstructing the manufactured reality behind empire, media narratives, and elite power.” Based in Denver, Colo., Rixman invited account viewers to “Read my Newsletter,” found at “thehoneybadgerjournal.substack.com.”

The point of dwelling on the details of a small-time X account (with 267 followers) is found in its power to aptly illustrate the attitude of the modern Left. It’s hard to imagine a more anti-“establishment” account. The choice of villains (“empire, media narratives, and elite power”) signals deep skepticism of all entrenched authority. The choice of platforms (social media and a Substack) indicates rejection of standard media platforms. And the declared intention (“deconstructing the manufactured reality” of supposed villains) expresses a desire to jettison the entire system and tear it down.

More than anything else, tearing things down is what Marxism excels at. The whole premise of the ideology is that entrenched powers must have established themselves through injustice and oppression, and that therefore justice demands the overthrow of these powers. For more than a century, Marxists from Moscow to Manhattan have advocated for perpetual revolution; once Marxists overthrow a government and become the new establishment, they steer that society into an attitude of continual revolution, with rhetoric decrying external enemies as the new oppressors.

This is not only a political observation, but a cultural one as well. Marxists in political power undermine and overthrow cultural institutions in favor of party-controlled systems, redesigning family life, economic relationships, and ethnic identities. For the effects of these destructive policies, look no further than the 30 million Chinese who starved to death in the “Great Leap Forward,” the four million Ukrainians who died in the Holodomor, or the one million Uyghurs currently imprisoned in Chinese “reeducation” camps. When Marxists cannot destroy by diktat, they undermine institutions by capturing and corrupting them — or simply by undermining their credibility.

According to a June Gallup poll, American Marxists are meeting with stunning success in this last endeavor — or the incompetence of others is doing their jobs for them. Gallup’s data show that American trust in core institutions is near the all-time low, with an average of only 27% of Americans expressing “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the three branches of government, business, organized religion, the media, the military, the police, medical professionals, and more.

Notably, while Gallup found that the trust in institutions varied by partisan identity (e.g. Republicans trust police more, Democrats trust the media more), trust is seriously down among all groups.

This presents a troubling conclusion: skepticism in social institutions — a key goal of Marxist ideologues — is a problem not only on the Left but across the political spectrum.

This should come as no surprise to anyone who has spent any amount of time in right-wing politics. For a personal anecdote, my teenage self cut his political teeth on Glenn Beck’s Fox News programming and the early Tea Party rallies (circa 2010), when the movement had an anti-establishment edge most sharply expressed in the slogan, “vote the bums out.” In my political circles, the most fashionable policies may have been congressional term limits and support for a Convention of States to add new constitutional amendments. More recently, right-wing institutional skepticism has catalyzed opposition to vaccines (COVID, flu, and others), alternative news sources, and conspiracy theories.

Before any offended readers tune out, allow me to offer a key clarification: not every form of institutional skepticism is unwarranted, nor is it necessarily Marxist. Some institutions have legitimately performed poorly. They deserve criticism and need reform. But an attitude that finds fault across the board and looks for reasons to be skeptical tends to destroy institutions instead of restoring them, and that is exactly what the enemies of freedom want.

Ultimately, then, the response to anti-establishment sentiment on the Right looks much like Harrison’s response to the same phenomenon on the Left. Experience, relationships, and a knowledge of how government works are assets, not liabilities. They take years to acquire and should not be squandered. Veterancy in Washington is not in itself evidence of corruption. From Ben Sasse to James Lankford to Lindsey Graham, some men can spend years in Washington without abandoning their core values.

One of the most important questions in politics is: as opposed to what? Because we live in an imperfect world, there will always be something to critique about the status quo. But, when someone comes along promising to build a shiny new utopia atop the ruins of the old order, it is appropriate to ask whether their proposed outcome is truly better.

As the preacher counseled, “What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of which it is said, ‘See, this is new’? It has been already in the ages before us” (Ecclesiastes 1:9-10).

In the case of left-wing radicals, the totalitarianism, collectivism, and oppression they propose has already been tried before, and America’s past leaders wisely rejected those policies. But right-wing anti-establishment skeptics don’t have a better alternative to the status quo, they simply endorse more chaos and governmental dysfunction.

The key principle here is that conservatism (notably in contrast to Marxism) does not seek to tear things down. It seeks to conserve the good and reform the bad, while maintaining continuity, so as to avoid needless chaos.

Readers may recall Harrison’s closing shot, “Everything shiny and new ain’t gold.” He nearly paraphrased Tolkien’s introduction of Aragorn:

“All that is gold does not glitter,

“Not all those who wander are lost;

“The old that is strong does not wither,

“Deep roots are not reached by the frost.”

Old and established do not mean bad. It could mean tried and true. New and innovative do not mean good. It could mean previously tried, rejected on its merits, and now repackaged to deceive a new generation. This point is an urgent crisis on the Left, but the Marxist scheme to undermine trust in American institutions now afflicts all points on the political spectrum.