Recent Graham Platner accusations notwithstanding, no one can credibly deny that Democratic Socialist candidates are having quite a moment. Octogenarian senator Bernie Sanders enjoys the highest favorability among active American politicians today. New York on the East Coast and Seattle on the West coast elected Democratic Socialist mayors last November. It looks as if the nation’s capital, Washington, D.C., is going to follow suit later this year. Los Angeles also has a Democratic Socialist candidate in the runoff for mayor. Just recently, three Democratic Socialists won US House primaries in New York City, as did other candidates in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Additionally, just last week, 29-year-old Democratic Socialist Melat Kiros defeated a 30-year incumbent in Colorado for a House seat. More notably, Phil Wieser, a relatively unknown candidate, defeated heavy favorite Michael Bennett, a US senator, in the state gubernatorial primary with 56.9% of the vote. Bennett won 43.1%.

There is too much consistency about these results for them to be dismissed as flukes. It is evident that many Democratic voters are angry, frustrated, and eager for significant change from party leaders. Indeed, they are demanding it, provoking fear and chagrin among the democratic establishment. There has been an avalanche of head-spinning commentary about the results, including from Jaime Harrison, Rahm Emanuel, and James Carville. These elites have expressed displeasure at the party’s sudden, sharp leftward turn. They even turned the issue personal, particularly in the case of Darializa Chevalier and Graham Platner.

Darializa Avila Chevalier is the 32-year-old daughter of Dominican immigrants and the Democratic nominee in New York’s 13th Congressional district, which has a long history of Palestinian activism and campus radicalism. She has engaged in questionable behavior in the past: attacking non-White men for being in relationships with White people (i.e., “fetishizing ugly colonizer women” discussing wiping her hands on the American flag; referring to former president Joe Biden as a “rapist”; declaring “F - Kamala Harris”; expressing a desire to abolish police, borders, and prisons; and referring to U.S. service members as “child murderers.”

As for Graham Platner, his sizable win in the Maine Democratic Senate primary notwithstanding, sordid revelations of his dark side have overshadowed his progressive, populist message. He has a tattoo that resembled a Nazi death’s head symbol but claimed he was unaware of what it represented. His campaign conceded that the allegations that he sent sexually charged text messages to women was true. Multiple ex-lovers have accused him of disturbing behavior, including one who said he used excessive force toward her more than once. In response, Platner described himself as a “bad boyfriend” but adamantly denied physically abusing women. Such allegations, coupled with old Reddit posts that a number of individuals described as racist and sexist, set the mainstream press abuzz.

It is probably safe to say that neither candidate will be vying for congeniality awards anytime soon. However, much of the bellyaching and cries of despair among elite party ranks and certain media outlets appear to be gaining little traction among rank-and-file voters at the moment. This is, in some ways, an indication of how the American public’s perceptions of such issues have changed. As a historian and a scholar of both 20th-century and more recent politics, I am highly aware that a number of (but certainly not all) politicians have been morally deceitful. Numerous politicians (and people in other professions) have engaged in ethically suspect antics. More than a few of them believed sex was a benefit they were entitled to, and others felt no apprehension about stepping outside of the bounds of matrimony to seek it. Many strongly harbored 19th-century Victorian attitudes, causing them to preach one thing and practice another.

Given the current political climate, the nation cannot afford the luxury of waiting for the “perfect candidate” - assuming they ever existed in the first place. To expect politicians to be above reproach compared to the rest of the population is hypocritical. This is even more true for people of color, whom an authoritarian, White supremacist-oriented administration is targeting. This administration is determined to abolish all progressive political and social legislation and return the United States to the Jim Crow era with its Black codes, grandfather clauses, and chattel slavery. During these politically dark times, we cannot afford to embrace a disingenuous form of respectability politics.

In Donald Trump, the nation has a commander-in-chief who is a thrice-married serial adulterer, a shameless grifter, and an insurrectionist with 34 criminal convictions who treats the U.S. Constitution as a recommendation. We do not need monks but revolutionary and visionary politicians who can take him on. A politician’s background is less important to me than their willingness to combat draconian political policies designed to undo centuries of progress. Could any of these individuals eventually expose themselves as pretending to support Democrats while voting with Trump on important issues as did John Fetterman or Krysten Sinema? Of course. However, Republicans are already doing such things without apology.

With Trump in the White House and Republican majorities in the House and the Senate, and with right-wing justices dominating the U.S. Supreme Court, ruthless attacks on diversity are being carried out throughout the nation. Previously historical Black and Latino congressional districts are being callously erased, and the Trump administration is sinisterly employing anti-discrimination laws against the very people they were meant to protect.

The current Democratic establishment is under attack because of the perception that it is weak and inefficient. It is not enough to say that “we are anti-Trump.” The people who say this often initiate and conclude the conversation by lamenting (often unconvincingly) why progressive ideas are outlandish, unrealistic, or impossible and yet fail to suggest creative and ambitious ideas themselves. The party must offer its ever-skeptical supporters valid and convincing reasons for investing in their brand, which currently appears somewhat stale, antiquated, and outdated. Democratic Socialists are offering such reasons as part of a bold, innovative agenda. They want to curtail, if not outright prohibit, offensive weapons sales to nations they perceive to be engaging in human rights abuses. Moreover, they support Medicare for All, free public college tuition, universal childcare, and basic housing as a human right.

There are a number of older, centrist, and corporate-leaning Democrats who take issue with such “radical” proposals. However, very few of them can offer their own resourceful solutions to issues such as skyrocketing childcare, health insurance, college tuition, and housing costs or the ever-transforming foreign policy landscape. These issues and concerns are on the minds of many of the party’s voters, whether they are people of color, female, or young. In essence, this voter base forms a significant segment of the Democratic Party. Upscale and affluent party leaders and power brokers, many of whom reside in exclusive enclaves such as Palo Alto, Palm Beach, Beverly Hills, Scarsdale, and the Hamptons, would do well to refrain from adopting an insincere “holier-than-thou” attitude, take heed of the brewing and seething storm, and take urgent steps to address it.