"We can't be afraid of using the power that we are given": An Interview With Alex Rikleen

He is challenging Ed Markey in the Democratic primary for Senate in Massachusetts

Alex Rikleen, 38, is running in the Massachusetts Democratic primacy to unseat Senator Ed Markey. Markey, 78, was first elected to the House in 1976 and to the Senate in 2013; he’s currently one of the most progressive members in the chamber. But Rikleen, like many Democrats, believes that the old ways of doing politics are insufficient in our current fascist nightmare. He is running, he says, to make Democrats act on their own claims that Trump is an existential threat.

I think Markey is a good Senator in general, and I’m somewhat skeptical that Rikleen—a former high school teacher and sportswriter who has held no elected office—has the experience required to be an effective Senator. But I also think we need more Democratic primary challenges and more people willing to fight Trump with the ferocity and desperation the times call for. So when I met Rikleen on bluesky and he suggested we do a Q&A, I said, “Sure!”

The interview below has been edited for length and clarity. Rikleen’s campaign website is here.

Noah Berlatsky: What's your background and why did you decide to run against Senator Markey?

Alex Rikleen: I was born and raised in Massachusetts. I went to Boston College, where I trained to be a history teacher. I graduated right into the thick of the Great Recession.

I was teaching history in 2015, 2016 and the job of a history teacher is in part to talk about current events and connect current events to history. And I knew what I was witnessing when I watched the Trump campaign, the way that he demonized others, the way that he tacitly endorsed violence, the way that he so brazenly lied all the time.

There were clear parallels between him and…well, pick your favorite authoritarian through history.

I think I understand the moment that we're in in a way that current Democratic leaders appear not to. This isn't the Republican Party that Ed Markey was dealing with when he first got elected to Congress [in 1976], at the same time that the Clash were forming as a band. This is a radically different party now, and he and other Democrats, they keep holding out this hope that Republicans are going to moderate.

You know, there are these statements on the record, [Minority Leader Chuck Schumer] said, I think in March, that he thought that when Trump's poll numbers dropped below 40% that then Republicans would really start to leave Trump and wouldn't so dogmatically support him on everything.

I mean, it's delusional. It represents a failure to live in the reality that we all live in.

And our Democratic leaders appear to not understand the threat that we are currently facing. And so we need someone who understands the moment that we're in. We need someone who understands that policy ideas are all well and good, but if we don't reform the Supreme Court, then every other policy idea that we talk about is tilting at windmills. We've got to recognize the Republican Party for what it is, and we've got to focus on structural reforms that make our democracy more functional and more workable.

We can't be afraid of using the power that we are given. Republicans use every amount of power that they're given, and then some. We've got to use what power we have to make our democracy function as it was intended to.

And [Democrats in Congress] don't appear to understand that.

You haven’t held political office before; why do you feel you’re qualified for this job?

I don't stand here and claim that I am the best person in the world for this job. But the reality of politics, especially in Massachusetts, is there's a lot of pressure to not primary an incumbent. And so a lot of really good, qualified people who have a career to lose aren't even considering this race because the risks to them personally are too high.

So you feel that not having been in politics is an advantage in that sense?

I don't know that it's an advantage….

I think that that we in Massachusetts, and we in the United States at large, we need someone running in this lane. And no one else is doing it now, and I think it is highly unlikely that anyone else will, as long as Markey remains in the race.

And Markey has said adamantly, every time anyone has ever asked, that he's running for re-election. I believe him. I don't know why some people continue to speculate that he might at some point drop out. I don't understand what that's based on. I am critical of Markey, of his response to this moment. But he's an honest guy. He’s adamant that he's running. I believe him. I don't know why other people wouldn't.

So as long as he's in this race, I don't think anyone else is going to be running in this lane. And so in terms of, am I theoretically the most qualified person for this job—you know, I go to the Biden line. Don't compare me to the Almighty. Compare me to the alternative. I'm the person in the race who understands this moment.

Markey is quite progressive; he went to Louisiana to help facilitate the release of Rümeysa Öztürk, the student targeted for arrest because of her pro Palestinian op-ed. He’s voted pretty consistently against Trump nominees; I think he voted for Rubio and that’s it. So, what exactly would you do differently than Markey in the Senate?

Markey going to Louisiana was amazing. Voting for Rubio though is pretty bad, That’s a pretty bad thing.

And he is clearly still supporting Schumer, which I think is pretty problematic. I think Schumer has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is not up to the task. Schumer does not understand the moment that we are in and is not up to the task of opposing Trump.

But more relevantly than that, Ed Markey has been in office for seven different Republican administrations. He has only described one of them as an existential threat.

So what is he doing differently now that he has elevated his language, now that he is saying, all right, this time is different? I don't see any change.

He put holds on nominees in the first Trump administration. He has yet to do that this time around. He has not denied unanimous consent. He hasn't been forcing quorum calls.

There are ways in which we can stall. We can grind the gears of government to delay. And Markey and the Democrats at large are not doing that. And I think that there's real harm done by trying to conduct business as usual with what I see as a highly unusual president.

One example I like to give is Linda McMahon. The role of Secretary of Education in the Department of Education is such that there were a number of cuts that they wanted to do but couldn't do until they had someone in the position of Secretary.

So they appointed Linda McMahon six weeks to the day after Trump got inaugurated, and by the end of that week, she had made a ton of cuts to education funding.

So if Democrats had started delay at the beginning of the term, as many of us were calling for from the beginning, as many Americans were calling for from the beginning, and hoping and assuming would happen since they’d just campaigned for 18 months saying Trump is an existential threat—we hoped that there would be a different reaction at the start of the administration.

And I don't I think it's a reasonable counterfactual to say, “All right, what would have happened if they had been doing everything they could to delay from the beginning?” My rough back of the envelope math is they could have delayed her nomination by somewhere between four weeks and two months. So those cuts wouldn't have been enacted for another four weeks to two months.

You know, there are families impacted by those cuts. There are school districts impacted by those cuts. That's a real direct impact. That’s a real harm done by Democrats trying to go about business as usual, trying to give Republicans a chance, not realizing the moment that we're in.

I wondered if you’d talk about your position on Gaza and Palestine. That’s an issue that matters a lot to progressive voters, who presumably would be the people who would be looking at your candidacy first. Have you had conversations with people in the state about that?

Yeah, it inevitably comes up.

[What’s happening in Gaza] is brutal And it’s a tough issue for me, personally. I met my wife in Israel. I am Jewish. This is an issue that very much hits close to home.

Is your wife Israeli?

No we were making use of Sheldon Adelson’s money. It was a birthright trip. When he wasn’t donating tons of money to Republicans, Adelson spent a lot of money on this trip that sends young Jews to Israel. So I enjoyed that I was depriving Republicans of money on that trip.

But about Gaza—my answer is that I believe that the United States has leverage and that we should be using that leverage to force Israel to stop committing war crimes.

I believe that Israel has a right to exist, and that they have a right to defend themselves, and that Hamas is by charter a genocidal organization that attacked Israel and that is currently holding hostages. And I hope that those hostages are someday freed.

But also we have to acknowledge the reality of the situation on the ground right now. And the reality is that every or almost every qualified expert on genocide in the world—you know, genocide has a definition, and pretty much every qualified expert on genocide looks at what's happening in Israel and says that this meets the definition of genocide.

So that needs to stop, and the United States should be using our leverage to get Israel to stop that.

So that would mean we would stop sending arms?

I haven't gotten into the specifics. It’s important to remember that when it comes to foreign policy, Senators can make specific pronouncements, but that's not really where our power lies.

Bernie Sanders had a bill that would stop shipments of arms to Israel if they kept committing war crimes with them. And Ed Markey signed it. Would you have signed it?

I'm going to be honest and tell you that haven't looked at that specific document. So

I don't know whether I would have signed that or not. I can look at it later and get back to you.

(Note: Rikleen did get back to me and said in chat, “I looked at the Bernie bills. I would support them.” He added, “As far as I am aware, neither Markey nor Bernie has been willing to use the term ‘genocide’ in their description of Gaza, as I did. I'm not certain about that (hard to prove a negative), but I have not found an example of Markey using the term.”)

I will say that when I see legislators getting heavily in the weeds on foreign policy, my reaction is, often, this is not where your power lies.

Congress is, in theory, supposed to have a say in whether we go to war, right?

That is the main influence on foreign policy that that legislators are supposed to have. But we're not at war with Gaza or Israel.

[The declaration of war] did come up in the news recently [with Trump’s bombing of Iran], though, and I think it speaks to the issues of why I'm running, and what I say about this mismatch between Markey’s words, which I think are mostly pretty good, and his actions.

After Trump made this unilateral decision to bomb Iran, Markey came out with a statement that called the bombing illegal and unconstitutional. And that’s correct on both points. I agree with him on both points. It's totally accurate.

But you're a senator, you're in the legislature, your job—sorry, I'm getting heated. It sounds like I'm yelling at you.

That’s fine; I know you’re not yelling at me!

If the President does something unconstitutional regarding a literal act of war, if that isn't grounds for impeachment, then what is? If you're not calling for impeachment when by your own words Donald Trump just committed an unconstitutional act of war, then you are declaring him de facto unimpeachable, you are saying that there is nothing that is worthy of impeachment!

So when Markie and many other members of the legislature went as far as to say that this was an unconstitutional act, but didn't follow that up by moving to impeach, they themselves are then betraying their oath of office.

If you're going to say this is unconstitutional, you have to follow that up by a call for impeachment. To say that this is unconstitutional and just stop there is another example of your words not matching your actions.

Another issue that gets talked about a good deal, is— Ed Markey will be 80 in 2026. Many people have argued that Democrats should try to nominate younger candidates. Is that something that people in the state are talking to you about? Is this campaign about age?

It comes up all the time, and it motivates me zero.

It's inevitable that it's going to come up. It's inevitable that people are going to bring it up and that some people are going to support me because of it. I can't control it. But if Markey were 20 years younger and doing the exact same stuff, I would be doing the same thing right now. I am outraged by the mismatch between his words and his actions.

If the goal is just to get a younger candidate, I don't need to step forward and run for that. That's just not what this is about to me.

I do want to emphasize that while I am critical of Markey where I think he needs to be criticized. I do think he's a pretty good senator. I do think he is one of the better ones. I just don't think that that's a particularly high bar right now.

He’s been a great public servant, and I respect him in his career. But I think we need more from him in this moment, and that's why I'm doing this.

Before You Go

This is the second interview I’ve done of Democratic primary challengers. As I said, I think it’s important to follow how Democrats currently are trying to change their party. If you agree, and would like me to do more of these interviews, a good way to help is to contribute to this newsletter. It’s $5/month, $50/year, and your contribution goes directly to helping me commit journalism. (Well, okay, some of it goes to feed my cats. But the rest—right to journalism!)