The Left’s Purity Tests: A Self-Defeating Anti-Strategy

There's a faction on the left that insists political progress demands ideological purity from allies and leaders alike. The logic is deceptively simple: uniform analysis leads to uniform solutions. Coerce conformity, ostracize dissenters, and signal your moral superiority. Sounds effective—until you realize it’s a recipe for division and defeat, with scant evidence to suggest otherwise.

Two recent examples expose this flaw: the backlash to comedian Bill Maher’s meeting with Donald Trump and the criticism of Bernie Sanders’ Oligarchy Tour with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Maher, a relentless Trump critic, once joked that Trump’s mother might have been “repeatedly ****ing an orangutan” in the 1940s, citing Trump’s appearance and intelligence as evidence. “The American people deserve some real proof that your mother did not spend most nights in 1945 covering her body in banana oil sneaking into the monkey cage and compulsively humping an orange orangutan.” Trump, unsurprisingly, was not amused, later suing Maher. The comedian has also slammed Trump for flirting with a third term, warning on his show that such moves echo North Korean-style loyalty to a dictator and violate the Constitution’s 22nd Amendment. Trump has hurled over 60 insults back, calling Maher “stupid,” “dummy,” “sleazebag,” and worse. Maher printed these insults and had Trump sign them—a sharp icebreaker for their meeting.

“What I’m going to do is report exactly what happened, and you decide what you think about it.”

Maher does leave it to his viewers, meticulously separating fact from interpretation, leaving room for others to form their own views. Yet, a vocal segment of the left denounced him simply for meeting Trump.

In his post-meeting monologue, Maher noted that both he and Trump heard from people who welcomed the dialogue—and others who didn’t. “And we agreed, the people who don’t even want us to talk—we don’t like you,” he said. “Don’t talk as opposed to what?”

That’s the question I’d pose to my liberal friends, and I doubt they have a coherent answer. The polarizing rhetoric doesn’t weaken Trump; it fortifies his support on the right, making it counterproductive. It’s less a strategy to counter Trump’s comportment and more a way to avoid real conflict while virtue signaling.
The conceit is that by talking to someone with whom you disagree you legitimate their views and behavior. That, of course, is false. So, too, is the corollary that by not talking to them you are being some kind of rebel.

This matters urgently because Trump’s tariffs will likely devastate all Americans, including the nearly 50% who voted for him. Engaging with them is essential for building opposition. That requires expressing fear and anger without divisive invective—and listening to their grievances, including what they loathe about you.

Yes, you do have to talk to the people you’ve labeled “Nazis.” The real divide isn’t between those who pass progressive purity tests and “fascists”; it’s between those who can have a conversation and those who can’t. It would appear there are many on the left who can't even manage to find common ground with a centrist Trump critic like Maher. Surely this is something they could change.

Bernie Sanders has faced similar attacks from the left over his stance on Israel, despite being a vocal critic of its actions in Gaza. Critics focus on three points:

• He’s said that Israel has a right to defend itself.
• He has not used the term “genocide” when referring to Gaza.
• He hasn’t questioned Israel’s “right to exist.”

Yet, against the backdrop of unwavering U.S. support for Israel from both Biden and Trump administrations, Sanders has been a bold dissenter.

“All of this is unspeakable and immoral. But what makes it even more painful is that much of this death and destruction has been carried out with U.S. weaponry and paid for by American taxpayers. During the last year alone, the United States has provided $18 billion in military aid to Israel and delivered more than 50,000 tons of armaments and military equipment.”

On Israel’s plans for Gaza, Sanders was unequivocal: “There is a name for such a policy—ethnic cleansing—and it’s a war crime.”

He’s also introduced multiple Senate bills to block weapons sales to Israel, which would have an immediate and concrete impact. Though unsuccessful, these efforts forced senators to go on record, which could prove valuable later. I mean, instead of attacking the guy who authored the bill, you could go after the senators that voted against it. Right? But somehow I doubt that anyone dissing Sanders has made that minimal effort.

The blogger Caitlin Johnstone captures part of this dynamic:

“[Bernie Sanders] is working to galvanize a big tent inclusive coalition of Democrats in opposition to Trump, and he wants that big tent to include people who think genocide is bad and people who think genocide is fine.”

If Sanders avoids “genocide” to build a broader coalition, is that so terrible? He’s called it “ethnic cleansing” and highlighted violations of human rights and international law. If his coalition stopped arms sales to Israel, would the absence of the word “genocide” matter? If bombs were falling on you, you wouldn’t care about semantics. Blocking arms is a first step, not the endgame.

The problem is the lack of strategic thinking. How does vilifying Sanders for not saying “genocide” change U.S. policy or help Palestinians? It doesn’t. It’s a purity test that splinters those opposing Israel’s actions—some of whom may not see Gaza as genocide, or who simply recognize that insisting on the term is self-defeating. Sniping at allies is easier than engaging opponents, but it produces only acrimony and division—not legislation or policy changes.

I do believe Israel is engaging in genocide. Recently, in a discussion with an Israeli and American Zionists about propaganda from Israel, AIPAC, and the ADL conflating antisemitism with anti-Zionism, I referred to “Israel’s actions in Gaza” rather than “genocide.” I did so to focus on propaganda without derailing into a debate over terminology. They were already defensive; escalating the rhetoric would’ve ended the conversation. Discussing propaganda felt more productive than insisting on a label.

The word “genocide” isn’t the point. The reality—massive bombings, drone sniping on children, systematized torture, denial of aid, famine as a weapon, and more—is horrific enough. Legally, yes, it fits the definition of genocide:

“… any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2

While the International Court of Justice may take years to rule, anyone can see the facts and draw conclusions—many already have. But forcing people to use the word “genocide” won’t change minds. That’s not how persuasion works.

This fixation with purity tests is self-sabotage. I support people charting their own political paths, but when their tactics undermine the broader cause, we all feel the repercussions; and we all share the responsibility to correct course.