Democrats' Graham Platner problem is bigger than Susan Collins | Opinion

You might know Graham Platner as the Maine Senate candidate whose past included a Nazi-associated tattoo. Yet despite serious questions about his background and judgment, he has effectively won the Democratic primary.

Many Democrats in Maine appear either unwilling to fully confront Platner’s controversial history or willing to overlook it to defeat Republican U.S. Sen. Susan Collins. Both responses reflect a dangerous erosion of political standards, one reminiscent of the partisan rationalizations that helped Republicans excuse President Donald Trump’s many flaws.

Democrats should demand better from their candidates. Rallying behind any nominee simply because of party affiliation, even against one of the Senate’s most moderate Republicans, risks degrading candidate quality and deepening America’s political polarization.

Platner's troubling record isn't a secret

Platner, 41, is a deeply flawed candidate whose campaign should have faced far greater scrutiny from the outset. Serious concerns began with the revelation that he had long displayed a skull-and-crossbones tattoo that resembles the Totenkopf, a symbol widely associated with Nazi imagery, on his chest. Platner claims he did not understand its meaning for nearly two decades, though he has since covered it and apologized.

Having to explain prolonged possession of Nazi-associated symbolism would be politically damaging for any candidate. While some voters may be willing to accept Platner’s explanation and offer him the benefit of the doubt, such revelations alone should have prompted far more serious questions about his judgment and fitness for office.

But Platner’s record raises broader concerns than a single controversial tattoo. His past statements, media appearances and social media activity have created a pattern that many voters could reasonably view as deeply troubling.

These include praise for a 2014 Hamas attack in which five Israeli soldiers were killed, a January interview with an antisemitic conspiracy theorist and repeated anti-Israel rhetoric that has become a notable feature of his political profile despite its limited relevance to representing Maine voters.

Taken together, these issues raise legitimate questions about Platner’s judgment, priorities and overall fitness for office. Democrats may not need to embrace the harshest possible characterization of his views, but their apparent willingness to overlook or minimize these concerns reflects a notable double standard, especially from a party that has long emphasized vigilance against extremism.

It is striking how much controversial baggage many Democratic voters appear willing to overlook in Platner’s case. His supporters often seem more focused on explaining away these concerns than seriously confronting them. Yet despite the weight of those questions, Platner has effectively secured the Democratic nomination.

For years, Democrats have aggressively scrutinized conservative rhetoric and regularly labeled Republicans “Nazis” or “fascists” over far less serious controversies. That history makes their willingness to downplay or dismiss legitimate concerns about Platner especially glaring. Standards mean little if they are applied selectively, and voters in both parties should be wary when partisan loyalty outweighs basic judgment.

Democrats would rather back Platner than a moderate Republican

All of this is happening in an effort to defeat Collins, one of the Senate’s most moderate Republicans, not a hardline MAGA firebrand.

Collins has repeatedly broken with her party, voting to preserve the Affordable Care Act, support same-sex marriage protections and confirm all three Democratic-appointed Supreme Court justices. By most available measures, she has consistently ranked among the Senate’s most bipartisan members.

Yet many Democratic primary voters in Maine appear willing to support a candidate burdened by serious ethical and character concerns rather than tolerate a Republican senator who has often worked across the aisle. If Democrats are willing to go to such lengths to unseat the Republican most willing to work with them, why would any sitting congressional Republican feel inclined to offer Democrats an olive branch?

This kind of “by any means necessary” approach to politics closely mirrors the same partisan impulses that helped put Republicans in their current position. If Democrats want to avoid their own version of the Tea Party movement, they should reject Graham Platner rather than rally behind him simply to defeat Susan Collins.

Standards only matter if they are applied consistently. If Democrats held their own candidates to the same standards they often apply to Republicans, they might better understand why backing deeply flawed nominees for short-term political gain is such a dangerous game.

Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.