In many respects, Platner appears as if he was designed in a laboratory for this moment in time. While many of the issues that he supports fall within what have historically been progressive, populist beliefs in American politics, Platner also has an edge to him that could be alternatively characterized as rugged, gruff, or unpolished, depending on the audience. A combat veteran, Platner owns firearms but advocates for gun control and an end to American military intervention in what he has characterized on his campaign website as “pointless wars.” On the surface, Graham Platner appears to be the exact type of candidate that many progressives on the American left have been desperate to find for years now. He has bona fides as what the conservative right would call a “patriot” – he served his country in the military, he works a tough, outdoors job, and he harkens back to some of the greatest moments in American history by basing much of his platform on at least the spiritual foundations of the New Deal.[1]

What I intend to argue within this essay is that Platner’s brand of populism is insidious, dangerous, and a false promise with regards to long-term progress for leftist political goals and ideology. Not only that, but I will also argue that if we on the progressive left want to enact meaningful progress, we cannot ignore the sea of red flags that a candidate like Graham Platner represents. I intend to provide a multi-disciplinary analysis that incorporates perspectives from history, political science, and journalism to grant a more holistic and complete perspective that is based on actual sources, instead of speculation.

So why waste your time reading this? Without digressing too much, I have an extensive educational and professional history across multiple different disciplines and backgrounds. I attended university, where I earned both a bachelor’s degree in history, as well as a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice and a minor in psychology. I graduated summa cum laude (with honors) in both my degree programs. I have also completed graduate school, where I earned my master’s in fine arts in history. As part of the requirements for that degree, I successfully authored and defended a 125-page thesis paper about the history and influence of the John Birch Society on 21^st century American conservatism. Professionally, I have worked as a policy author for my state government, where I researched, provided background, and analyzed prospective legislation that was then presented to lawmakers.

Currently, I have spent the past few years working where another one of my main passions resides – in mental health. I am someone that has “co-occurring disorders,” meaning that I have an unfortunate background of both serious mental health issues, as well as substance abuse issues. Without going into too much detail, I spent many years working on myself and my mental health so that I could get my life back in order. I have obtained a couple of licenses over the years, and my current employer is allowing me to supervise the clinical hours that I need to work towards my Certified Alcohol and Drug Counselor license. I say all of that so that you reader, understand that when I discuss the duality of human beings, the ability of a person to change, and the value of not constantly judging people by their worst decisions…I understand. I am going to work very hard to judge Platner and his populist brand of progressivism based on their track records, because I believe that past patterns of behavior are the number one predictors for future actions.

As I mentioned, the brand of progressive politics that Graham Platner exemplifies is a Trojan horse, a false prophet for those of us who want to see the progressive left accrue actual political power. While progressive populism may seem like the polar opposite to the poisonous rhetoric and beliefs of the populist right, historically, this has not been the case. This is not an argument that I am conjuring up out of whole cloth, and the concept of populist politics in the United States is discussed extensively in historian Michael Kazin’s book, The Populist Persuasion. In it, Kazin argues that no matter the motivations, populism has been used as a cudgel by which those who seek and hold power can abuse the same marginalized groups that have suffered throughout American history. As Kazin wrote, “appeals to ‘the people’ have more commonly promoted detestable views – fear of the black and immigrant poor, a belief in conspiracies, loyalty to America and to God used as a club to beat one’s rivals.”[2]

Kazin does not argue that populist language itself is damaging. Quite the opposite, he contends that much of the progress that the American left has only been achieved once populist language was incorporated into political ideology. Notably, Kazin wrote that the New Deal would likely not have happened were it not for the populist image and language that FDR utilized. However, Kazin also catalogued numerous examples of how populism eroded the genuine progress that those on the political left have attempted to make. The labor movements of the early 20^th century, which should have helped unite American workers, were instead notoriously exclusive, often fighting for the rights of white workers at the expense of workers of color and women. Similarly, while the time period following World War II is often cited as the most productive period for the American middle class, Kazin notes that this progress did not extend to black people, even those who served alongside their white counterparts overseas.[3]

Kazin also chronicled the ways in which populism undermined the goals and progress of the civil rights movement. Initially, populist rhetoric was extremely effective, granting civil rights leaders a larger platform and bigger spotlight by which they could highlight the unfair treatment being faced by people of color. However, this populist presentation soon ran into the realities of the Cold War, where appeals to treat all people equally were often treated as reeking of communism. Clayborne Carson, a historian and civil rights leader of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, made a similar argument in his book, In Struggle. Carson noted that the association with communism was an extremist label that acted as a death knell for the most progressive wings of the civil rights movement. This conflict, where many Americans began to interpret populist progressivism as communism, was the beginning of the end for much of left-leaning, progressive populism.[4]

The other major trend in American populism has been the rate and frequency by which it is co-opted by conservatives for their own means. Conservatives soon co-opted populist trappings and adopted them to their own goals, and the results have been electric. In his book, The Silent Majority, historian Matthew Lassiter wrote in part that the adoption of populism has been the defining characteristic of 21^st century conservatism, and I am inclined to agree. I featured Lassiter’s book as one of the more prominent secondary sources that informed my own thesis, and for good reason. Lassiter uses Richard Nixon’s ‘Silent Majority’ as the main vehicle by which to introduce the successes and failures of conservative populism. While Lassiter argues that individual policies such as the Southern Strategy ultimately failed, he claims that the long-term benefits of conservative populism were far more effective. In a nation increasingly characterized by white families residing in suburban neighborhoods, a new conservative brand of populism emerged that presented these potential voters with a platform of lower taxes, seasoned with the culture war issues that were dredged up by the Christian Right. Michael Kazin came to a similar conclusion as Lassiter, writing that this form of conservative populism handed us the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump, and enabled the growth of astroturfed, populist political campaigns like the Tea Party.[5]

So, hopefully by now, I have adequately laid out the false promises that progressive populism has given us on the political left. While there are certainly some short-term gains to be made, to the point where populist language can be incredibly useful, it inevitably ends up being an exclusive movement that preys upon marginalized groups, which is ultimately co-opted by conservatives. There is no good or positive way for us to utilize populism, it will always come back to bite us and reinforce hegemonic norms.

Now I would like to transition to my arguments specifically about Platner. To be frank, I cannot believe how many people I know are intelligent people, capable of critical thinking, who are eating this up. This is John Fetterman 2.0, just a little less obvious, and they’re falling for it again. Before I get into the specifics, ask yourself this: if a conservative politician had this sort of background, would we be falling over ourselves to make excuses for them? Would we go out of our way to justify their actions? Or would we, rightly so, just call a spade and spade? Just because a politician manages to eek out some left-leaning phrases and ideas, doesn’t mean we just then ignore the plethora of red flags that surround this guy.

First, I would like to address both the intentions and timing behind Platner’s various terms of service overseas, as both a soldier, and a private contractor. On his campaign website, Platner claims that it was his final stint in Afghanistan in 2018, where he “became deeply disillusioned with America’s foreign policy and endless wars,” and that this was the catalyst for him to change. However, in multiple other interviews, including an August 2025 interview with Zeteo, Platner claimed alternatively that he lost faith in American foreign policy as early as 2011. This sort of inaccuracy by itself doesn’t mean much, but in totality it adds up to more. If it was back in 2011, that means that Platner became disillusioned, then continued to re-enlist, supporting something he didn’t believe in. Alternatively, Platner also claims that he had an extensive history of being anti-war, including protesting against the very same Iraq War that he later joined. Again, taken one at a time, they aren’t that big a deal. Taken together, they begin to build an unflattering portrait.[6]

I suppose I could overlook that, but then there’s the issue of Platner’s work with Constellis, which is the direct successor to the infamous Blackwater Security firm, which was involved in various war crimes in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The problem for me is that at this point, Platner is over 30-years old and has done multiple tours in Iraq. This isn’t 2004, when the war first started, it’s now 2018. Donald Trump is in the White House, and Platner is apparently still not completely sure whether or not the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were a good idea? For context, by 2018, only 23% of Americans had a favorable view of the Iraq War. Additionally, Platner has attempted to endlessly split hairs by insisting that he “never worked for Blackwater.” Sure, he technically didn’t work for a company literally called Blackwater, but he did work for Constellis Holdings, which is very much the same company, owned by Erik Prince, that used to be called Blackwater. It has just gone through multiple re-brandings under new names. So yes, Graham, you definitely worked for the same exact company that used to be called Blackwater, which gunned down innocent civilians, multiple times, in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Again, I am just exasperated as to why you would lie over something that is ostensibly not that big a deal, unless you know it’s a big deal, and you don’t want to actually admit to it.[7]

In addition to that are the comments that Platner made on Reddit. I am not going to mention any of them save one, because I don’t really think that people’s anonymous internet comments are a particularly good record of who they are as a person (or politician for that matter). However, I did find Platner’s comment about wishing that he was alive to participate in the Crusades to be a little concerning. Because on one hand, he could just like so many veterans I’ve met, in which their military service was the catalyst for them to seek out and embrace leftist beliefs. But taken another way, this could also read as a pattern of behavior, in which Platner joined the military (and re-enlisted multiple times) exclusively because he enjoyed the role that the U.S. military granted him. He got to act as a modern-day Christian Crusader, and his Reddit comments directly allude to this.[8]

Then there’s the tattoo. More specifically, the Totenkopf or “Death’s Head” tattoo that Platner got adorned on his chest, which was arguably the most iconic image associated with Hitler’s SS troops. Again, maybe I could forgive the concept of getting a drunken tattoo, but to quote Platner’s own former campaign director, “Platner prides himself on his extensive knowledge of military history…While he may not have known what his tattoo meant when he selected the image, it is not plausible he remained ignorant of its meaning all these years.” For additional context, former staffers have commented that Platner knew of the tattoo’s connotations for quite some time, yet didn’t choose to cover it until the information publicly leaked. As a historian myself, I simply cannot accept that a grown man, who prides himself as a military historian, would be totally unaware of perhaps the most insidious symbols of the Nazi regime. At best, it demonstrates a serious lack of judgement, followed by years in which he was told, multiple times, of the tattoo’s meaning, yet chose to do nothing about it. That is not someone I trust to hold political office, because either Platner is incredibly dense, or he thinks we all are.[9]

Added to this is the fact that Platner attended the most prestigious private boarding school in the country as a child, and that his father and grandfather are also notable figures in their own right. His father was an assistant district attorney, and his grandfather was a famous architect. Despite his working-class image, Platner very much comes from an affluent background, with the pedigree and history to prove it. For example, Platner likes to say he started his oyster farm on his own, when the truth is, the seed money came from his father. Again, if this was the background of a conservative politician, would all of us on the left be working this hard to provide cover for them? Or would we call out the hypocrisy for what it is?

I am astounded that platforms such as The Majority Report, which I would typically lend a lot of credit towards, accept Platner’s candidacy with such an uncritical eye. I cannot believe that more people do not see the very obvious long-term problem, which is this: How can we on the left highlight and criticize fascism, authoritarianism, and extremism when it’s on the right, but then ignore it when it’s on our side? This will be an albatross that the right uses to diminish and discredit any and all arguments we have towards the conservative turn towards extremism. “How can you criticize Trump when you voted for Platner?” How many times do you have to watch a candidate do and say the right things while on the campaign trail, only to flip once in office? Furthermore, Platner has no legislative experience and has never held any elected political office. He literally has no track record to fall back on, other than “trust me.” Time and time again, Platner gives very serious reasons for voters to not trust him, and yet I keep seeing people ignore these very real, very obvious warnings.

Listen, I get it. The alternatives who are running are utter garbage, including a Senate candidate who would be something like 86-years old when her first term as Senator ended. But that is far more reflective of the problems of two-party politics than anything else, and moving forward, we have to do better than this. For an easy corollary, I think of the current dating scene. Ask most women, the bar is so low for the average guy, its on the floor. So, clearing that bar isn’t so much a reflection of how great a guy you are, but rather how far the standards have fallen. The same principle applies to Graham Platner and the U.S. Senate race in Maine. Because there are no better options, I can’t say outright don’t vote for Platner. But let’s stop pretending like the guy is some archon of leftist politics, when he fought for Blackwater and had a Nazi tattoo as late as last year. He’s only being held up because our current state of American politics is absolutely dismal.

[1] “Graham Platner – Candidate for United States Senate,” Lincoln County Democrats, accessed May 5, 2026, https://lincolncountydemocrats.com/graham-platner-candidate-for-united-states-senate/&ved=2ahUKEwiQsvfyraKUAxWSD1kFHfOWD8EQFnoECBwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw36fnjAj3QG--6zZNgZgrkS;

[2] Michal Kazin, The Populist Persuasion: An American History (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995), 4-8.

[3] Kazin, Populist Persuasion, 287-290.

[4] Kazin, Populist Persuasion, 196-200, 222-242; Clayborne Carson, In Struggle: SNCC and the Black Awakening of the 1960s (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981), 180-189.

[5] Matthew Lassiter, The Silent Majority: Suburban Politics in the Sunbelt South (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006), 232-250, 319-323; Kazin, Populist Persuasion, 281-286.

[6] Prem Thakker, “Meet the Disillusioned Veteran Who Thinks He Can Beat Susan Collins in Maine,” Zeteo, August 19, 2025,

Zeteo

Meet the Disillusioned Veteran Who Thinks He Can Beat Susan Collins in Maine

In 2020, the Democrats were sure they could finally best Susan Collins (notorious for being only “concerned” about Trump’s unconstitutional, illegal, and racist behavior). Optimism was high, particularly after she voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Plus, Democrats, who had former Speaker of the state House Sara Gideon leading the charge…

Read more

9 months ago · 355 likes · 29 comments · Prem Thakker

.

[7] DropSite News, “Interview with Graham Platner,” accessed May 5, 2026,

“Iraq,” Gallup, accessed May 5, 2026, https://news.gallup.com/poll/1633/iraq.aspx.

[8] Lauren McCauley, “Unearthed Reddit comments present first stumble in Platner’s rise,” October 17, 2025, https://mainemorningstar.com/2025/10/17/unearthed-reddit-comments-present-first-stumble-in-platners-rise/.

[9] Joseph Gedeon, “‘I’m not a secret Nazi’: Maine Democratic Senate candidate addresses tattoo,” The Guardian, October 21, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/21/maine-graham-platner-tattoo-democrat-senate; Sawyer Loftus, “Graham Platner knew his tattoo of a Nazi symbol was a problem weeks ago, former staffer says,” Bangor Daily News, October 21, 2025, https://www.bangordailynews.com/2025/10/21/politics/elections/graham-platner-tattoo-problematic/.