Haley Stevens, John Fetterman, And Why White Liberals Are More Dangerous Than MAGA

MAGA Republicans are comforting. And before you start throwing things at me, hear me out.

At least they tell you who they are.

They aren’t particularly interested in disguising their intentions, pretending to have some deep moral conflict about their politics or asking you to understand that their support for Donald Trump is really just a complicated expression of their feelings. They show up wearing red hats, waving flags, defending whatever fresh nonsense has come out of the White House and making absolutely no secret about what they believe.

You know what you’re getting. They have made it abundantly clear that they are perfectly comfortable with racism, authoritarianism, cruelty and whatever other indignities the Trump administration decides to serve up that morning. There are no surprises. No bait and switch. No lengthy explanation about how their political positions are actually more nuanced than you understand.

White liberals, on the other hand, can be a different kind of dangerous. Particularly the ones who have built their political identities around being the reasonable, educated, morally superior alternative to MAGA.

Because sometimes the person standing next to you at the protest, wearing the progressive T-shirt and telling you how much they care about democracy, is perfectly willing to help dismantle the very thing they claim to be protecting the moment their feelings get hurt.

Just ask Rep. Haley Stevens. Actual proof that not all Karens are MAGA-loving, four-wheeler-riding hillbillies.

The Michigan Democrat, who lost her party’s Senate primary to Abdul El-Sayed, apparently decided that if she couldn’t get the Democratic nominee to play by her rules, she would take her political ball and go home. Except going home apparently meant endorsing Republican Mike Rogers, a man who has pledged to be a loyal vote for Trump’s agenda and supports policies Democrats have spent years warning voters about.

That’s not simply a political disagreement. That’s a political tantrum with potentially enormous consequences. And it’s a white woman white womaning. Stevens had previously endorsed El-Sayed after losing the primary and publicly said she intended to vote for him. But after weeks of escalating tensions over Israel, an advertisement criticizing American financial support for Israel, El-Sayed’s association with streamer Hasan Piker and her demands that the nominee distance himself from people and rhetoric she found offensive, Stevens reversed course. Because of course she did. 

She announced her endorsement of Rogers on Sunday, just two days before Election Day.

Stevens had been scheduled to participate in a unity appearance with El-Sayed and other Democratic leaders at a Detroit church. Instead, she showed up at another church alongside Rogers, hugged the Republican and announced her support.

Apparently, if you cannot get the Democratic nominee to give you the apology you believe you deserve, the next logical step is to help Republicans take control of the Senate.

What a time to be alive.

Now, let’s be clear: Stevens can have her position on Israel, but it’s a purchased position. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its affiliated groups poured about $30 million into Steven’s Democratic primary victory, their largest investment in a single race, and she still lost. Then came all the alleged disagreements she had with El-Sayed, and she’s entitled to her beliefs, but abandoning deeply held convictions because a primary election didn’t go her way is another level of “let me speak to your manager.”

Because all of this is about a white woman not getting her way. This is about a white woman being told no and then pulling her support for a candidate she knows would be better for the people because he didn’t do what she wanted.

There is a rather enormous difference between disagreeing with a candidate and helping elect his Republican opponent, particularly when that opponent is aligned with a president whose administration has made attacking immigrants, Muslims, Black people, and democratic institutions a governing philosophy.

If your commitment to defeating MAGA is conditional on whether a Democratic candidate makes you feel sufficiently respected, perhaps your commitment wasn’t particularly strong to begin with.

And Stevens isn’t the only Democrat making this particular brand of political gymnastics a spectacle. Enter Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, otherwise known as Haley “Fetterwoman” Stevens’ political twin.

Fetterman has spent an extraordinary amount of political capital making himself one of the most reliable Democratic defenders of Israel, frequently embracing positions and rhetoric that have earned him praise from Republicans and Donald Trump supporters while alienating many of the voters who helped put him in office.

His support for Israel isn’t exactly a secret. He campaigned on being a supporter, and his post-October 7 politics have been remarkably consistent. But that’s precisely the point. Fetterman has demonstrated that the progressive aesthetic and progressive politics are not necessarily the same thing. A hoodie, tattoos, and a working-class persona do not make somebody a progressive. Neither does a Democratic registration card.

Fetterman has increasingly found common cause with Republicans on Israel, immigration and other issues, while treating criticism from the Democratic coalition as something to be dismissed rather than seriously considered. He has become something of a hero to people who otherwise wouldn’t give him the time of day.

And while there are meaningful differences between Fetterman and Stevens, the political lesson is the same: Pay attention to what people actually stand for, not the political packaging they arrive in.

The difference is that MAGA doesn’t need to pretend to be something else. Its voters and politicians have spent years telling us exactly what they want. Fetterman and Stevens represent a different problem: the political opportunism of people who want the benefits of belonging to a coalition without accepting the responsibilities that come with it.

And this is where white liberalism becomes particularly dangerous.

White liberals who see themselves as the guardians of democracy can become so consumed with protecting their own political sensibilities that they lose sight of the actual stakes. They confuse being offended with being oppressed, disagreement with persecution, and personal loyalty with political principle.

They also have a remarkable ability to make their own grievances the center of conversations that are supposed to be about everybody else.

Stevens didn’t just disagree with El-Sayed. She turned a disagreement into a referendum on whether she felt welcomed, respected, and sufficiently validated by his campaign. And when she apparently didn’t get what she wanted, she handed Republicans a political gift.

That’s the problem with making politics about your feelings instead of your principles. Your principles become negotiable. And when those principles are negotiable, the people most vulnerable to the consequences of your political decisions become collateral damage.

There is an especially ugly irony in watching a white Democratic congresswoman endorse a Republican in a race against a candidate who would make history as the first Muslim elected to the United States Senate, particularly when that Republican is aligned with a president who has repeatedly trafficked in Islamophobic attacks.

Stevens can insist that she is still a proud Democrat. Fine. But political identity isn’t a loyalty card. You don’t get to keep collecting the benefits of a political coalition while actively helping its opposition.

The Democratic Party has a longstanding problem with people who believe their proximity to progressive politics makes them progressive. They want credit for supporting diversity without necessarily supporting the people who make that diversity inconvenient. They want to be celebrated for opposing Trump without being asked to challenge the policies, money and political interests that make Trumpism possible.

They want to be the good guys without having to do the uncomfortable work of actually being good allies.

That’s why the Stevens endorsement matters. It’s why Fetterman’s political evolution matters. And it’s why the conversation about the dangers of white liberalism cannot simply be dismissed as another exercise in finger-pointing.

There is a difference between an adversary and an unreliable ally. You can prepare for an adversary. You know where the opposition stands, what it wants, and what it is willing to do to get it.

An unreliable ally can walk into your house, tell you they’re there to help, rearrange the furniture, invite the enemy inside, and then explain that you’re being unreasonable for questioning their intentions.

MAGA is the enemy that announces itself. White liberals who put their own comfort, hurt feelings, and political investments above the coalition they claim to support are the ones who can quietly undermine it from within.

And if it takes little more than a bruised ego, a disagreement over Israel, or the prospect of losing access to political money to completely rearrange your political landscape, then perhaps the real enemy isn’t always across the aisle.

Sometimes the real enemy is inside the house.

And somebody needs to change the locks.

SEE ALSO:

Vice President JD Vance Doesn’t Understand Ranked-Choice Voting

2 Dan Sullivans, 1 Senate Seat, An Alleged Democratic Plot To Flip Congress