Dace Potas, a DePaul Grad With Political Science Degree, Discovers Meritocracy, Immediately Explains Racism to Black People
USA Today: Where "Opinion" Means "We Found Someone Willing to Write This"
Dace Potas wants you to believe that James Talarico is a radical disguised as a moderate, that Democrats are obsessed with identity politics, and that racism and sexism had nothing to do with Kamala Harris’s struggles or Hillary Clinton’s loss. It is a neat little story, but it falls apart the moment you start asking for receipts.
”Radical” Is Just Republican for “I Disagree With It”
Let us begin with the central claim: that Talarico is a radical. Potas says this because Talarico supports Medicare for All, wants to eliminate the filibuster, and has made comments about race and biological sex. But here is the thing: those positions are not radical. They are mainstream. Poll after poll shows that a majority of Americans support some form of Medicare for All. The filibuster is a procedural tool that has been used to block civil rights legislation for generations; wanting to get rid of it so that majority rule can actually function is not radical, it is democratic. And the scientific consensus on biological sex has been clear for decades: sex is not a simple binary. There are chromosomal variations, hormonal differences, and anatomical variations that do not fit into neat boxes. If Talarico said there are six biological sexes, he is reflecting what biologists have known for years. That is not radical; it is scientifically accurate.
Potas also takes a swipe at Talarico for using religion to justify his positions, particularly on abortion. This is a curious complaint coming from someone who presumably has no problem with Republicans using religion to justify their positions. When a Republican cites the Bible to oppose abortion, that is principled. When a Democrat cites the Bible to support abortion rights, that is radical. The double standard is showing.
Context Is Hard, Apparently
Then there is the quote Potas pulls about Talarico saying white skin gives immunity from the virus of racism. Potas presents this as evidence of Talarico’s radicalism, but he strips away the context. Talarico was talking about white privilege, the idea that white Americans do not experience racism personally but perpetuate racist systems. It is a standard sociological observation, one made by scholars and activists for generations. Framing it as radical is either dishonest or ignorant.
The “Merit” Argument: A Greatest Hits Album of Bad Faith
Potas’s real argument, though, is about identity. He claims Democrats are obsessed with race and gender, that they think being a white religious man makes you a moderate, and that they ignore merit in favor of identity. This is a funhouse mirror version of reality. The Democratic Party has spent decades trying to win over white working-class voters while taking Black and Latino voters for granted. The idea that they are obsessed with identity is laughable. What Potas is actually mad about is that Democrats are no longer willing to pretend that race and gender do not matter in politics.
He points to Kamala Harris and says her unpopularity was due to her record, not her race or gender. But here is the problem: he offers no evidence for this claim. He just asserts it. The reality is more complicated. Harris faced a barrage of racist and sexist attacks from the moment she joined the ticket. She was called too ambitious, too loud, too emotional, all classic dog whistles used against women of color. Did her record play a role? Sure. But to pretend that racism and sexism were not factors is to ignore the last four hundred years of American history.
Same with Hillary Clinton. Potas says her loss was due to her defects as a candidate, not her gender. Again, no evidence, just assertion. Clinton won the popular vote by three million votes. She lost because of the Electoral College, because of Comey’s letter, because of Russian interference, and yes, because of sexism. Studies have shown that gender bias played a significant role in how voters perceived her. To dismiss that is to dismiss reality.
Potas ends with a call for Democrats to stop viewing race and gender as important and start pursuing candidates with merit. This is the oldest trick in the book: pretending that merit is objective and neutral when it has always been shaped by race and gender. Who gets to define merit? Historically, it has been white men who look a lot like the candidates Potas prefers. The idea that we can just ignore identity and focus on merit is a fantasy that serves those who already have power.
Projection: The GOP’s Favorite Defense Mechanism
Here is the truth: James Talarico is not a radical. He is a mainstream Democrat in a country where the center has been pulled so far to the right that basic decency looks like revolution. Supporting healthcare for all, wanting to make democracy function by eliminating an anti-democratic procedural rule, and acknowledging scientific reality about sex and race are not radical positions. They are the positions of someone who is paying attention.
Potas wants you to believe that Democrats are the ones obsessed with identity. But look at the Republican Party. Look at how they have built their entire platform around white grievance, around attacking transgender people, around banning books about race. The projection is staggering.
Talarico may or may not win in Texas. It is a tough state for Democrats, not because Texans reject moderate policies, but because the state has been gerrymandered into oblivion and voter suppression is rampant. But if he loses, it will not be because he was too radical. It will be because the game is rigged. And columns like this one, which mischaracterize his positions and dismiss the reality of racism and sexism in American politics, are part of the reason why.
To read the original column that treats "I took a poli-sci class" as a credential for ignoring four centuries of American history, click here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2026/03/14/james-talarico-moderate-democrats-texas-election/89095285007/
Works Cited
Bialik, K. (2017, September 18). How America changed during Barack Obama’s presidency. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139-167.
Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. Basic Books.
Kaiser Family Foundation. (2024). Public opinion on single-payer health insurance. https://www.kff.org
Pew Research Center. (2016, November 9). Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. https://www.pewresearch.org
Talarico, J. (2026). Campaign website and policy positions. https://www.jamestalarico.com
USA Today. (2026, March 14). James Talarico isn’t a moderate. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2026/03/14/james-talarico-moderate-democrats-texas-election/89095285007/