“We have become the status quo party, and so we have reverted to defending democracy instead of explaining how we are going to break it down and reform it,” Murphy said. “We have not been a pugilistically populist party, where we name the people who have power and we build very easy-to-understand solutions about how to transfer power to people who don’t have it.”

Murphy then criticized the Democratic Party for becoming too “judgmental,” saying they’re a body “filled with a dozen litmus tests.”

“We don’t let you in unless you agree with us on everything, kind of—from gender rights to reproductive rights to gun control to climate,” he said.

Murphy argued that the Democratic Party should make their make-or-break issue their economic beliefs, then allow for divergence on other issues.

“We’ve got to be a party that invites people in as long as they agree with us on the basic economic message, and build our party with a little bit more acceptance of people who have diverging views on social and cultural issues,” he said.

Murphy’s harsh words could place him at odds with many, if not most, others in his party. In an appearance on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D-CA) podcast earlier this month, Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) espoused a largely opposite view.

“These are bad guys, though. These are bad guys,” he said when Newsom suggested a dialogue with those on the Right.

“How do we push some of those guys back under a rock?” Walz added when Newsom mentioned online pundits who had been winning over young men.

The Minnesota governor said he wouldn’t cater to “misogynists” or compromise on LGBT issues when Newsom suggested they engage with conservatives or voter bases the Democrats had lost.

Elsewhere in the New Yorker interview, Murphy laid out an almost apocalyptic vision, claiming “we have months—not a year—before our democracy is rendered so damaged that it can’t be repaired.”

“I do think that over the last four years, those surrounding Donald Trump put together a pretty thoughtful plan to destroy democracy and the rule of law, and you are seeing it being implemented. Just in the last week—and you and others have covered this well—the assault has been trained on academia, institutions of higher education, and the legal community, the biggest law firms in this country,” he said.

“In democracy after democracy, those two institutions—higher education and the legal profession—are, in many ways, the foundation that undergirds the rule of law,” Murphy added.

“This is how democracy dies. Everybody just gets scared. You make a few examples, and everyone else just decides to comply,” he said.

Despite his criticism of the left flank of the Democratic Party, suggesting that it made them “unelectable” in 2024, Murphy said the party should shift to look more like Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). That would help the party establish “populist economics” as the “tentpole,” rather than social or cultural issues, Murphy argued.

He also said the change has to happen fast, as he believes there may not be a free and fair election in 2026.

“It may not even be that the mechanics of the election are rigged. I’m not suggesting that there will be election officials out there stuffing ballots. What I’m talking about is that the opposition—the infrastructure necessary for an opposition to win—will have been destroyed,” Murphy said.

“No lawyers will represent us. They will take down ActBlue, which is our primary means of raising small-dollar contributions,” he added. “They will threaten activists with violence, so no one will show up to our rallies and to our door-knock events. This is what happens in lots of democracies around the world; the opposition is just kept so weak that they can’t win.”

When asked whether Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was the “right leader” for Senate Democrats at the moment, Murphy replied, “He can be,” acknowledging that it is a difficult position to hold.

TIM WALZ BECOMES DEMOCRATIC LEADERS’ BIGGEST CRITIC TO REMAKE HIMSELF

The Connecticut senator also threw cold water on having loftier aspirations, which many have speculated, given his frequent television appearances and stronger stances in recent months. “Are you in the process of asserting yourself for national office?” he was asked, to which he responded flatly, “No.”

“So to the extent that people are picking up what I’m putting down, I think it’s because they see that I am motivated—first, second, and third—by my fear that we are going to sleepwalk through the transition of our country from a democracy to an autocracy,” he said.