Graham Platner and the Populist Distrust in Institutions

The loss of faith in American political institutions is perhaps the most defining characteristic of current American politics. Ever since President Donald Trump won his 2016 presidential campaign running against the political establishment as a populist candidate, right-wing populism has become especially dominant across the world. In Argentina and Germany, parties that promise a takedown of the elite and the institutions they control, or push broad social reforms that occasionally veer into calls for ethnostates and extreme nationalism, have gained more and more power. The recent liberal response has been a mixed bag. Many politicians have leaned into pragmatism and the longheld ideology that having governmental know-how and experience is important to being an astute politician. President Joe Biden was the perfect example of these ideals. He was a lifelong politician who knew the ins and outs of Washington, and because of that, was able to have a generally successful presidency, at least on paper. Biden created nearly 17 million jobs and brought unemployment down to its lowest point in 50 years. He effectively handled the COVID-19 pandemic and passed groundbreaking infrastructure legislation. However, his strategy of delivering results and appealing mainly to moderates wasn’t enough. His vice president, Kamala Harris, decisively lost to Trump in 2024, and many liberals have decided on a new response to right wing populism: left wing populism.

The rise of Graham Platner in the Maine Senate race only makes sense in our current political landscape. As a military veteran and oyster fisherman, Platner is populism’s dream candidate. He is a man of the people, for the people, and promotes himself this way publicly; his campaign focuses on wealth inequality and fighting back against the “billionaire class” that in his eyes “owns Washington,” something that has made him well-favored by his constituents.

Fresh faces and outsiders have always had their appeal, but the trend of people with little-to-no political experience running for, and winning major offices in recent years is noteworthy. Platner’s campaign coincides with that of New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, the three-year state assemblyman set to be the leader of America’s largest city. Like Mamdani, Platner has a lot to prove about his ability to govern effectively.

Mamdani’s political rise was accelerated because he built his whole identity on being the opposite of the political establishment. He started as an organizer focused on housing and transportation, and turned that background into a statewide message about affordability. His policies are ambitious: He wants to freeze the rent for millions of New Yorkers, raise taxes on the city’s wealthiest residents, and shift police funding toward community-based services. His supporters see urgency and moral clarity in these aims. His critics, however, see someone who has never managed anything at the scale he is about to inherit. Running New York City requires control over an enormous bureaucracy, and many are worried Mamdani is not equipped with enough experience to do so. The disparity between Mamdani’s goals and his inexperience has defined the conversation around him, and it shows how much voters are willing to gamble on someone who promises real ideological change rather than career-long skill.

This same political mood shapes Platner’s campaign. Platner’s policy platform mirrors the outsider energy that pushed Mamdani into power, even though the specifics differ. Platner aims to clean up Augusta, protect working coastal communities, and fight policies that only favor wealthy interests. He frames himself as someone who will not be absorbed by the system. His policies are simple and often broad. He talks about investing in small towns, stabilizing fisheries, and improving access to rural healthcare. There is emotional and personal appeal in his ideas; they feel honest and grounded. However, they sidestep the complexity of actually governing. Platner does not have detailed plans for funding, labor issues, or coordination with federal agencies. Supporters do not seem to care. They want someone who will challenge the status quo, not someone who sounds like another insider. That is why his message lands today. It is straightforward and idealistic, and it gives people a version of Maine that feels possible even if the path is not fully outlined. It is also unfortunately impossible to separate his rise from the controversy surrounding racist comments he has made and an antisemitic tattoo he had, which continue to follow him even as his support grows.

Platner has never held any political office, never been responsible for a constituency, and frames that as a good thing. He isn’t part of the political elite; he’s an outsider, like you and me, and he’s going to fight for our interests, not the interests of the rich people dragging us down. This message is almost intoxicating and has Platner polling at 36 percent in the Democratic primary, only five points behind the first-place candidate, former Maine Governor Janet Mills. His lack of experience, however, cannot continue to be ignored. There is a danger in the lack of value they place on experience. 

Platner’s biggest rival in the Democratic Party is Mills. Mills, a former-district-attorney-turned-attorney-general-turned-governor, is a product of the political establishment and represents the exact kind of politician Platner and modern populists resent. She has been in politics and governance for decades. At 77 years old, concerns about her age are real, but it is impossible to deny that she has experience. As governor, she managed Maine through the COVID pandemic with one of the lowest death rates in the country, expanded Medicaid to more than 100,000 people, signed the state’s first major climate law with binding emissions targets, and negotiated bipartisan budgets in a legislature that often swings between moderate Democrats and rural conservatives. She pushed through record investments in public education, and navigated the fallout from the Lewiston mass shooting by convening legislative commissions and directing funding toward behavioral health infrastructure. These are not symbolic gestures. They are the kinds of complex, administrative tasks that require knowing how government actually works.

In an era shaped by dysfunction and division, that skill set matters. Americans need to remember that experience is not just time spent in office. It is the ability to manage agencies, build coalitions, deal with crises, and turn broad promises into real outcomes. It is knowing which levers inside government actually move something, and which ones only look good in a speech. It is understanding budgets, legal limits, federal coordination, and the difference between what you want to do versus what the state can legally or logistically handle. Platner frames experience as a liability because it helps him position himself as pure and uncorrupted. But that framing ignores the reality that real governance is complicated. Rhetoric does not run a state, however magnetic it seems to voters. Mills’s record shows why experience is still a necessity. She has made decisions under pressure, navigated competing interests, and produced measurable results. That kind of competence is not glamorous, but it is what keeps a government from giving out under the weight of its own promises.

 It isn’t that Platner’s concerns are invalid, or that political outsiders should be ignored. It’s that governing, especially at the state and national level, requires more than frustration and fresh ideas. It requires experience, strategic thinking, and the ability to work within a system that is flawed but real. Voters should be wary of mistaking authenticity for readiness and capability.