In a March 2025 PBS NewsHour interview that sent shockwaves through Democratic political circles, Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin delivered a blunt diagnosis of her party’s electoral problems. Democrats, she argued, need to shed their image as “weak and woke” and bring back what she called “alpha energy” — the kind of commanding presence voters see in Midwest football coaches and military leaders.

Around the same time, UC Berkeley political scientist M. Steven Fish published a provocative book arguing that Democrats must embrace “high-dominance politics” or risk losing democracy itself. His prescription? Stop being defensive, reclaim patriotism, and project the kind of strength that wins elections.

And in August 2025, Axios documented what it called a “Democratic MAGA movement” — politicians from Gavin Newsom to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez adopting more aggressive, populist messaging styles in an attempt to match Republican energy.

Here’s what none of these analyses fully recognized: Democrats already have candidates who naturally embody “alpha energy” and “high-dominance politics.” They’re called military veterans. And when they run, they win.

The irony of Senator Slotkin’s call for “alpha energy” is that she herself is the perfect example of what she’s advocating. Before entering politics, Slotkin was a CIA analyst who completed three tours in Iraq and worked at the Pentagon under both Republican and Democratic administrations. She won her first House race in 2018 by flipping a district Trump had carried by 7 points. In 2024, she won Michigan’s Senate race while Kamala Harris lost the state.

When Slotkin talks about Democrats needing “alpha energy” — the kind she associates with Midwest coaches who “have got some alpha energy to them” — she’s describing the command presence and decisive leadership that comes naturally to military veterans. Her entire political career validates the thesis that veterans can win in tough terrain precisely because they project the strength and credibility voters demand.

M. Steven Fish’s book “Comeback: Routing Trumpism, Reclaiming the Nation, and Restoring Democracy’s Edge” provides the theoretical framework for understanding why veteran Democrats consistently outperform expectations. Fish argues that voters fundamentally favor what he calls “high-dominance” leaders — politicians who project strength, take risks, make bold claims, and dominate their opponents rather than playing defense.

Fish’s analysis is devastating in its clarity. Candidates viewed as “more knowledgeable” win about half the time. Candidates seen as “caring more about people like me” win about half the time. But candidates regarded as “the stronger leader”? They rarely lose.

Now consider what military service signals to voters: decisive leadership under pressure, proven ability to command respect, willingness to put country before self, and tested courage in high-stakes situations. These are the exact qualities that define Fish’s “high-dominance” politics. Veterans don’t need to fake strength — they earned it.

The Axios reporting on Democrats adopting “MAGA-like” messaging reveals a fundamental problem: when politicians without military or law enforcement backgrounds try to project toughness, it often comes across as performative. California Governor Gavin Newsom hosting “chummy interviews” with Steve Bannon. Progressive Democrats adopting more aggressive rhetoric on social media. These tactics may generate headlines, but they don’t solve the underlying credibility problem.

Contrast this with how veteran Democrats communicate. When Marine Corps veteran Ruben Gallego talked about border security during his 2024 Senate campaign, Arizona voters didn’t question his toughness — he’d already proven it in Fallujah. When Army Ranger Jason Crow discusses national security threats, his credentials are self-evident. When former Navy helicopter pilot Mikie Sherrill talks about leadership, voters know she’s commanded aircraft in hostile environments.

This authenticity gap is why veteran Democrats consistently outperform non-veteran Democrats with independent voters and moderate Republicans. Swing voters are highly attuned to performative politics. They reward candidates whose toughness is earned, not manufactured.

In making his case for “high-dominance” politics, Fish points to historical Democratic leaders who embodied strength and confidence: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Martin Luther King Jr. What Fish doesn’t emphasize enough is that several of his exemplars had military backgrounds that shaped their leadership styles.

FDR served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy during World War I, giving him defense credibility that helped him lead during World War II. JFK’s heroism commanding PT-109 in the Pacific became central to his political identity and his tough stance during the Cuban Missile Crisis. LBJ’s naval service in World War II (he received the Silver Star) contributed to his commanding presence in the Senate and White House.

The through-line Fish identifies — Democrats win when they project strength, take risks, and dominate opponents — is exactly what modern veteran Democrats bring to electoral politics. They’re not trying to channel FDR or JFK. They’re bringing the same tested leadership qualities that made those historical figures successful.

When Senator Slotkin calls for Democrats to bring “alpha energy back into the party,” she’s describing qualities that are second nature to military veterans:

Command presence. Veterans are trained to project confidence and authority in high-pressure situations. This isn’t bravado — it’s professional competence that voters instinctively recognize and trust.

Decisive leadership. Military service requires making difficult decisions with incomplete information and living with the consequences. This is exactly what voters want in elected officials, especially during times of economic or national security uncertainty.

Mission focus. Veterans are trained to prioritize objectives over politics, results over process. This “get the job done” mentality resonates powerfully with swing voters frustrated by partisan gridlock.

Proven patriotism. Fish argues extensively that Democrats need to reclaim the flag and embrace positive patriotism. Veterans don’t need to reclaim anything — their service record speaks for itself. No opponent can credibly question a veteran’s love of country when that veteran literally put their life on the line in service.

The “alpha Democrat” conversation happening in political media represents a dawning realization: Democrats can’t win swing states and districts by apologizing for their values or playing defense on cultural issues. They need candidates who naturally project strength, confidence, and patriotic pride.

But here’s what Democratic leadership needs to understand: You can’t train “alpha energy” in a weekend campaign workshop. You can’t manufacture “high-dominance politics” through better messaging memos. These qualities come from tested leadership in high-stakes environments — exactly what military service provides.

The path forward for Democrats in 2026 is clear. Recruit aggressively from the veteran community. Prioritize veteran candidates in competitive primaries. Give them the resources to run on their service records. And stop trying to make non-veteran politicians sound tough when you have authentic warriors ready to run.

Senator Slotkin is right that Democrats need “alpha energy.” Political scientist Fish is right that voters favor “high-dominance” leaders. The Axios analysis is right that Democrats need to project strength and confidence rather than playing defense.

But the solution isn’t teaching politicians to sound tougher. It isn’t having Gavin Newsom curse more on podcasts or getting progressive members of Congress to adopt more aggressive rhetoric on social media. These are tactics without strategy, performance without substance.

The solution is already working in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and dozens of competitive House districts across America. It’s called the Warrior Democrat strategy. It’s powered by organizations like VoteVets that recruit and support veteran candidates. It’s validated by electoral data showing veteran Democrats consistently outperform non-veteran Democrats in swing districts.

Democrats don’t need to manufacture “alpha energy.” They need to recruit the Americans who already have it: the veterans who served their country in uniform and are ready to serve again in Congress.