Richard North Patterson accuses “progressives’’ running against establishment Democrats of being purists who would turn off “moderates and independents’’ in general elections (“Democrats must favor electability over ideology,’’ Opinion, July 12). He implies that they are unelectable political spoilers who threaten the party’s chances of gaining seats from which to curb Donald Trump’s power base in Congress.

Why on earth would anyone count on the conservative Democratic establishment to curb Trump, let alone diverge from any but the most infamous and inflammatory of his policies? What, beyond window dressing, did the party do to reverse billionaire power or refrain from pro-billionaire action when it had the presidency and both houses of Congress after 2008?

As part of his case for progressives to stand down, Patterson cites “broad agreement’’ among Democrats on several key issues. In fact, the Democratic Party, with the Republicans, advanced the neoliberal agenda that caused these crises over recent decades. And Patterson wisely doesn’t even mention the permanent wars and society-devouring military budget that the Democratic establishment so overwhelmingly supports.

This sorry record, not moderate or independent voters or progressive spoilers, is the reason for Trump’s opportunistic rise, subsequent betrayal of a large chunk of his base, and ratcheting up of the pro-billionaire policies he inherited from the parties.

Whether Democratic progressives could or would truly take on Trump — as opposed to a large movement in the streets independent of the Democratic Party — is a separate question.

But the Democratic Party that Patterson tries to portray as standing with the majority on the issues is but one of two wings of the same bird of prey.

James Taff

Roslindale