Note: I am a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. I do not agree with every policy position, but I generally support the DSA agenda.
By Ross Barkan, The Nation, Here Comes the Inevitable Backlash to DSA’s Rise
The Democratic Socialists of America have never been more relevant. And with this rise comes an inevitable backlash—not so much from the voters themselves as the Democratic elites wary of the insurgency and the media organs that, more often than not, reflect their blinkered conception of the world.
Why are Democrats panicking so much about DSA? Why has at least one Atlantic columnist labeled them a “parasite”? This is the price of victory—of becoming, at last, a threat. The socialist left, for almost a century, was nothing more than a footnote on the American political scene. A major force in the Eugene Debs era, with more than a thousand elected officials scattered across the country, the Socialist Party withered in the 1920s and ’30s, a victim of the first Red Scare and attacks from the major political parties. Franklin Roosevelt had weakened them as well, dragging the Democratic Party left and adopting many of the economic policies they had supported. As anti-communism took hold in America, there was no place for any prominent politician using the “s” word, and even when Michael Harrington founded DSA in the early 1980s—unlike the old Socialist Party, his DSA would compete in Democratic primaries—there was little hope that the organization, with just a few thousand members, could decide elections.
The rise of Bernie Sanders changed all that, reinvigorating DSA. Membership boomed. Sanders himself wasn’t a DSA member, but he called himself a democratic socialist. Still, the Democratic establishment could worry only so much. Sanders was defeated twice. DSA members like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did begin to win congressional primaries and a handful of socialists entered statehouses and city councils, but there were only so many of them. A centrist Democrat repeatedly denouncing DSA would have seemed a bit silly. Who really cares about DSA? When Donald Trump was defeated and Joe Biden returned to office, DSA maintained its small foothold but effectively stopped growing, and the Democratic establishment could exhale. The socialist fervor, it seemed, had passed.
Zohran Mamdani changed all that. A socialist winning America’s largest city was a great shock to the establishment Democrats who believed the DSA moment had come and gone. The primaries last month proved that Mamdani’s victory wasn’t an anomaly, a political fad. Darializa Avila Chevalier, Claire Valdez, Melat Kiros, and Chris Rabb are all heading to Congress. DSA is continuing to grow its presence in state legislatures. As in the 1960s, “when a graying Democratic establishment backed the Vietnam War while the youth revolted, many Democrats today clung far too close to Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israel and are paying the price. Pro-Palestine sentiment has reinvigorated the left. This success has driven some pundits and political leaders to declare that DSA members should be thrown out of the Democratic Party. Jamie Harrison, the former chair of the Democratic National Committee, said on X not long ago that socialists who “hate the Democratic Party” should not “run for our nomination.” “Don’t use our resources. Don’t rely on our volunteers,” he posted. “Don’t use our infrastructure. Don’t ask Democrats to invest their time, money, and energy in your campaign.” In his “parasite” Atlantic column, Jamie Kirchick argued that the Democrats should be “prohibiting DSA members from joining their party and throwing out the DSA members already honeycombed within it.”
For an anti-socialist liberal, it’s a nice idea. Make the Democrats the party of Rahm Emanuel and Tom Suozzi and leave it there. The trouble for them is the American political system, one that is flawed but does permit quite a bit of grassroots democracy.
….
“Harrison’s argument is especially absurd because there are few “resources” or “infrastructure” a centralized Democratic Party deploys for most races. It’s up to candidates themselves to raise money and recruit volunteers.
….
They just understand, as Harrington did, that running in the Democratic Party primary is a much better way to make tangible change than forming a third party and losing more often than not. Ironically, many of the same political leaders and pundits who call for a DSA purge today would be equally livid if they formed a third party tomorrow, contested general elections, and potentially siphoned votes from Democrats.
Yeah, I’ve donated to some DSA members. Because they are vibrant and want real change NOW. Of course top Dem elites are upset, they don’t want to rock the horse, they may say they are against Trump but what are they REALLY doing?
I think there’s a deliberate ploy in American politics to keep voters paranoid about anything hinting towards ‘left wing’. I heard Mike Johnson recently imploring his Republican supporters to make sure they get out to vote come November or else the ‘communists’ will win. Trump never seems able to utter the word ‘leftie’ without adding the epithet ‘radical’, because of course that implies some sort of extremism. The reality is that America is already part socialist, in that mild socialism is actually the most moral and beneficial way of ensuring everybody in society is cared for, or at least has some sort of safety net. It’s nowhere near the level of social governance that prevails in Europe, where health, welfare, and employment protection are much higher in the order of priorities, but it does mean that, on the whole, people appear to lead happier and more contented lives in Europe.
Trump and his cronies meanwhile speak with forked tongues. They deplore communism, whilst falsely equating it with socialism, yet at the same time exhibiting all the characteristic hallmarks of authoritarianism that are actually the bedrock of communist regimes.
As I pay more attention to political and social systems, the more I believe that a more socialist system is the more moral way to run a nation. I believe each person deserves to have basic needs met – Healthcare, affordable housing, affordable food, education, etc. The US has a few safety net elements, but it’s basically a system of “go scratch” where those who already have famiky resources or connections can thrive while the rest struggle to survive. It’s gotten worse over the past decades as GOP have gutted many of our protective laws and have transferred wealth from the lower and middle classes to the wealthy. The wealthy don’t give back. Something has to change.
I just joined DSA. Thanks, Bruce.
When it comes to Dear Leader Trump, every accusation seems to be a confession. He exhibits all the hallmarks of a communist authoritarian such as Kim Jung Un (North Korea). While technically not communist in the true sense, I would say hardcore republicans want corporate communism, which is just as bad as the Soviet type of the last century.
The Democratic Party needs to decide which side of history it wants to be on. There most certainly can be an American socialism that appeals to a wide segment of the US population. It doesn’t necessarily have to exclude the wealthy liberals, but they need to understand that if they are part of the movement, it cant just be for virtue signaling and to alleviate white guilt. They have to be willing to live under the system, and pay a higher amount of taxes for the betterment of society. It also doesn’t have to exclude rural conservative folks either, but they also have to come to grips with changes in societal attitudes regarding sexual orientation, the second amendment and the role of religion in politics.
The party itself would also do well to study and come to terms with the reasons far left governments in the past have failed, including instances where there was a slide into ideological purity-authoritarianism. Once this happens the people you advocate for begin to see you as the new elite and themselves as the oppressed.
I personally think a fiscally socialist and socially libertarian government is the best, with safety nets for instances of corruption and abuse for both the government and social institutions (like churches). Under this system people can live their best lives, be who they want to be (so long as they are not causing harm to others) and have a decent standard of living for themselves and their families.
We needed a leftward move, partially because the “middle” Democrats had become so entranced with conservative economic views. Also, having only 2 political parties does not allow room for people like me. Thatcher would have said I could not rely on society for any healthcare. I was born premature and had to be put in an incubator. I have had other consistent health problems over the years. There is no room in society for someone like me who needed medical help. We needed the DSA to shake things up. Obama did what he could with the congress we gave him to get the ACA (Obamacare) in place. Now we must continue to work.