If Democrats want to succeed online, they’d do better to foster genuine debate than to manufacture consent.
T he political world has been rocked by the tragic assassination of Turning Point USA founder and president Charlie Kirk. An outspoken voice for conservative causes, Kirk engaged in politics through the most effective and American way possible: open dialogue. He was prominently known for his campus appearances, where he fielded questions from an audience of largely adversarial college students. He was also at the center of the right’s new media apparatus with his popular podcast show streamed by Real America’s Voice.
Voices like Kirk’s have dominated the influencer and social media landscape. This marked a shift that was evident in the 2024 election cycle, when Trump leveraged podcast appearances and digital strategies to connect with his base and with younger voters. The left has been searching for its response to Turning Point USA and other groups since last November.
Last month, independent journalist Taylor Lorenz broke a story in Wired about Chorus, the Democrats’ new media venture that coordinates and compensates left-leaning influencers for posting TikToks and tweets. According to Lorenz, Chorus contributors earn $8,000 a month under the group’s six-month pilot program, funded through Democratic-aligned sources such as the Sixteen Thirty Fund.
Democrats are right to notice that vertical video, podcasts, Substack, and full-time content creators are increasingly shaping culture and politics. But they’re missing a larger point. The right gained an advantage in this space by embracing media built by independent influencers, not party elites. Chorus should take note if Democrats want a competitive creator ecosystem.
I have run Young Voices, a similar group for classical liberal, libertarian, and independent voices on the right, for over a decade. But Chorus differs from our program in its use of secrecy agreements and strict messaging. Lorenz discovered that, as part of their contract agreements, participants had to agree to attend weekly messaging meetings, to get pre-approval from the organization for “any political content created with program resources, or otherwise created as part of the program” — and to not disclose their participation in the program.
Chorus is enforcing top-down messaging control and stifling internal disputes. Creator independence gets tossed by the wayside to drive home party talking points. That’s no way to build a big tent coalition, the kind needed to win elections, pass policy, and move public opinion. Far from differentiating itself from the politicians and mainstream media, Chorus is just adding more voices to the left’s choir.
Building true influence comes from authenticity. At a time when trust in institutions is reaching historic lows, voters aren’t looking for polished talking points. They’re looking for honesty. They’re looking for creators who challenge their own side, admit when they’re wrong, and elevate new ideas rather than recycle partisan ones.
Transparency matters, too. Chorus participants are contractually barred from disclosing their affiliation — a condition that risks eroding credibility if exposed. By contrast, Young Voices openly engages with our participants’ work. Contributors list their affiliation in bylines, tag us on social media, and engage in public debate with each other, often surfacing new insights. That’s what journalists are supposed to do: illuminate truth, not obscure it.
At Young Voices, our creators are free to critique any side, so long as they ground their work in shared values of liberty. Our editorial-independence policy ensures that donors cannot dictate content. As a result, our writers have exposed instances of regulatory capture, defended Americans’ civil liberties, and even challenged U.S. policy abroad.
Most important, we’ve built a real community. Young Voices contributors — from our immigrant Dissident Project speakers Daniel Di Martino and Gaby Blanco to our published authors like Alexandra Hudson and Stephen Kent — have gone on to thrive in think tanks, nonprofits, media outlets, public office, and the private sector. They represent perspectives across the political spectrum and around the globe.
That’s the real promise of new media: not polished partisan messaging, but a diversity of authentic voices shaping the conversation. Not everyone agrees 100 percent of the time, and that’s okay. If Democrats want to succeed online, they’d do better to foster genuine debate than to manufacture consent.