Those online political tests always put me somewhere between the left and far left. I live in one of the more publicly leftist cities (the operation of any liberal city is more bureaucratically moderate in the background) and I’m a mainstream writer. So most of my close friends are on the left and at least sympathetic to the DSA. And the key attribute of those friends is the romanticization of politics. They are, in an unrecognized way, very patriotic. They truly believe that things can be better, that the United States is fully capable of getting better. While believing that the USA has already greatly improved over the decades, I’m far more cynical about that process. I might share a lot of political beliefs with my DSA and DSA-adjacent friends but I do not share their love and admiration of certain politicians.
I'd be interested to hear your opinion of what the future for the US actually does look like. BTW, do you have any opinions about Kshama Sawant v. Melissa Chaudry in Seattle?
I think that’s the right attitude. It’s important to simultaneously reject nihilism, but also not to be naïve regarding the reality of politics in contemporary America. Either of these attitudes can be devastatingly disempowering, in different ways.
Hi Ross, as one of the oldsters you mention-a founder of DSA, former chair of the NY Local, former vice chair, director of the Democratic Party work in the old DSA, and a very , very close ally of Michael Harrington's-I'd be happy to talk to you. I don't think it is as simple to say that Mike would be delighted with the newly elected DSA members. It's much more complicated than that. Mike saw the Democratic Party as the closest thing that the US had /has to a mass social democratic movement with all of the social forces contained within--that's why he chose to create DSOC and then DSA to work inside the party not, a third party, but the ripping down and rush to overtake some old alliances are more problemmatic, I think for the old DSA strategy--as well as what we had which was a deep believe in expanding democracy, not allowing vanguardism to exist within the organization... happy to engage more on this- Jo-Ann Mort
Socialism is the "cure" that is worse than the illness. It is antithetical to liberal democracy, and socialists trying to run as Democrats only helps to undermine the only major political party in the US that still stands for liberal democracy.
Socialists are illiberal. However, socialists have, with a very few exceptions, not been treated illiberal. They are free to promote their illiberal ideas, but not to impose them.
Eugene Debs would disagree. As around the 20% of Americans investigated for communist sympathies by their employers during the red scare. Also federal infiltration and monitoring of socialist groups, communist control act of 1954, use of cops and military to break strikes...
I'm not sure if you are ignorant of the history or just handwaving it, but I strongly disagree that it's the socialists who have been the illiberals in American history.
Debs was one of the rare exceptions to which I was referring. We have learned more and done better since then. As for communism, there was a very real threat from USSR and China, and those countries were trying to undermine US interests from within and without the US. Yes, there was an over-reaction in the US, but that doesn't diminish the real threat that existed.
The 1954 law is still active and on the books. Even if people expected it would fail under constitutional challenge, so they say 'technically'. I guess it's a question of how much you trust the supreme court these days.
The Stalinist left during the 30s and 40s was perhaps the biggest supporter of civil rights for black Americans during that time while they worked to undermine American democracy. Standing for one or two good ideas when your fundamental platform will undermine liberal democracy overall does not make justify support. The myopia of One-issue voters (see, e.g., on the other side, Jews who voted for Trump because of Israel) do little to add to the health of our system.
You miss the contradiction here - what was more likely to undermine American democracy: the Stalinist left or de facto and de jure segregation within institutions, both public and private? Solve the latter, and you have little to worry about from the former, which might explain why people like Hupert Humphery's quickly got to work on building a case for civil rights in the 40s.
I share the general disgust with the DNC and how it has managed to take the party further and further away from where a solid, good-faith electorate stands. But I have a major concern regarding the funding of positions that have been strengthening the DSA. Much of the current growing strength of the DSA seems have come from a revolt against the Democratic Party’s support for Israel in the wake of the Netanyahu government inhumane handling of Gaza. However, so many of the anti-Israel websites and TikTok sites funding can be traced to Qatar. Similarly, Qatar is now the largest single foreign government funding U.S. college campuses. In short, the so-called spontaneous pro-Palestinian demonstrations (which began immediately after the October 7 massacre by Hamas — even before Israel launched its military response) appear to be the result of Qatar funding. If, in fact, these pro-Palestinian efforts allow such dangerous nitwits as Hasan Piker and Darializa Chevalier to erode the Democratic Party (Michigan, anyone?), this will only serve to allow the Trump kleptocracy to move this country closer to authoritarianism.
Do you have sources for the Qatar stuff? I'm sure there's some truth to what you said, but the claim that the demonstrations were effectively orchestrated is quite a strong one and needs serious evidence.
You know, it's entirely possible for people to be disgusted by genocide with or without your Qatari bogeyman. Even if you're right, how is that any worse than being funded by AIPAC?
I think the voters who are registered Dems or Dem leaning are rightly disgusting by the triangulation and lack of core principles and the Unwillingness to fight Trump that is exhibited daily by the Dem establishment. It doesn ‘t follow that these voters are supportive of DSA style socialism just because many of these candidates bring the fight that voters want to see in this era of Trump. A return to classic liberal democracy is what is needed to create an environment where progressive ideas can flourish. DSA has a number of good ideas, but as Mamdani has demonstrated thus far as Mayor, compromise is needed to advance the policies that spring from these ideas to fruition. From where I sit, MAGA and DSA are temperamentally similar despite the ideological differences
Unfortunately, as so many have pointed out, the Democratic Party’s leadership does not seem to be learning the necessary lessons. So few democrats in congress spoke up in favor of the common sense ruling by the Supreme Court allowing states to prohibit trans women from participating in women’s athletics. In other words, the party remains a captive of vociferous, but tiny minority positions such as the radical trans community. The party will be sapped by a lack of sensible leadership that allows the DSA-types to eat away at its overall support. By the time some reasonable alternative emerges from the wreckage, the Trump reign may well have rendered this country virtually unrecognizable.
Seriously man, these so called 'moderates' just can't resist any opportunity to shit on trans people. One of the core bedrock principles of liberalism is that if anyone's rights can be violated, then everyone's rights can be violated. "First they came for the communists, yada yada." If we start throwing marginalized communities overboard for the sake of appeasing low-key bigots, then what do we even stand for anymore?
He's right about one thing. I'm a centrist, in favor of sensible, good faith exercise of government. I'd like to see a healthcare system that pushes the insurance companies aside, that is funded by the gov't, but allows the providers to be outside the gov't, kind of like a bunch of 501(3)c's. I'd like sensible gun legislation. I'd like decentralized education, again gov't funded but locally run. I'd like us to really help Ukraine. I'd like to see away where we disconnect with many of the Mideast countries. Etc.
AND ... I'm no longer a fan of the national Democratic Party. All they do is harass me for money, but for the life of me I can't figure what they do with it.
I too wanted to think of myself as an old-fashioned classical liberal until fairly recently. I hoped against hope that after 2016 the Democratic party would learn their lesson and make the structural changes that were necessary to defeat Trump once and for all. Instead they doubled down on the same old stale crusty tone-deaf rhetoric that the donors and consultants love to hear. My position now is that if they're not going to make the change, we have to do it for them. The center is dying and future is either going to be fascist or socialist. I know which side I'm on.
I don’t agree that the center is dying. Many voters like centrist policies that actually serve people. What they don’t like are consultant and focus group driven and created policies because these aren’t coherent policies at all, just concessions to monied interests. A good example of a so called progressive policy that doesn’t actually poll well among Dem voters is abolish the police. This was quite fashionable for socialists and ultra progressives to tout in the post George Floyd era. The irony was the black people the progressives imagined an abolish the police stance would help, were opposed to su h a policy because without the police many of these candidates bring communities these voters live in would become outright lawless
Yeah, and you'll notice that 'defund the police' is no longer on anyone's front page anymore. Progressives recognized that that was a dead end and course corrected. Unlike the democratic party at large for the last 10 years. And because the democratic party has drifted so far to the right, basic liberal policies that would have been completely uncontroversial in the 1950s are now defined as radical left extremism. Bernie Sanders would have been considered a boring moderate during the New Deal era. Now he is beyond the pale precisely because the 'center' has lost its legitimacy and decided to die on this hill rather than give an inch to progressives.
But what you just described "consultant and focus group driven and created policies" *is* centrism as it actually exists.
I agree with you that most people are generally moderate in their views on many topics. Abolishing the police certainly fits there though redirecting funding to other social programs (what say Mandami is actually doing) does poll well once people see the funding in the other places.
But when it comes to "centrism" as practiced by Chait or Schumer or the other proud centrists it is not for anything other than being performatively halfway between here and there. The only way to do that is to drive yourself by polling first and goals second. At the end of the day that will always feel empty to people, and it makes you vulnerable to whoever drags the Overton window to the right. Whether wittingly or not it means that they end up validating the worst charges against themselves by, say, mildly criticizing ICE training after they shoot someone in the face. Small wonder that people seeking actual change or a moral stand look elsewhere.
Good piece, Ross. It does seem that the press mandarins and would be mandarins are not just ignorant. They want to frame DSA and socialism as gentrifiers or feckless radicals. It suits them that the world is like that, its their world and they resist change. Why do journalists who would presumably support something like a more robust new deal get scared and huffy about those who are working toward it?
Perhaps because the people working toward it are threatening to upend the world that the journalists live in. Consider Chait or Yglesias. They are not really journalists per se, they don't break stories or do interviews, they are pundits. They are paid for their opinions. Both have long ties to the existing Democratic party and their capacity to maintain those ties is key to their position. Yglesias, for example, met with Biden staffers when he was in the White House and he was connected with the Harris campaign. He made a point of declaring that she was guaranteed victory because she was running the optimal centrist campaign. That isn't about journalism, that is about access.
The people running DSA or the Mandami campaign do not have Chait or Yglesias on speed dial, indeed it's not even clear they care what either one thinks. This puts the well paid centrists in the position of outsider which they are not used to and it reduces them to mostly claiming that this or that candidate is too far out of the "mainstream" to win (then watching them win) or claiming that this or that policy "will never work" (see Universal Healthcare) only to see it become more and more popular. This is not to say that their criticisms aren't sometimes right but I would argue that they come more from defending the in-group rather than any policy. Indeed Chait's most recent criticism of DSA and their call for universal Healthcare has a big "hey we tried!" feeling to it.
Democratic socialism is not some kinder, gentler form of socialism. It is socialism in the textbook sense of public ownership of the means of production via the state, which is the explicit goal of the DSA. Democratic socialists see social democracy as a transitional stage toward socialism. They sell social democracy to voters, but their goal is still to eliminate private enterprise and private wealth when they can. It is a game of bait and switch with an ignorant faction of voters that is especially frustrated with the status quo. A lot of progressives can't even accurately define terms such as socialism, communism, capitalism, fascism, liberalism, etc. Nor can a lot of MAGAs, for that matter.
Sure sure, and watching this country drift into corporate feudalism for the last 50 years is better how? Without redistribution of wealth, you inevitably end up in a situation where a handful of sociopaths own everything while the rest of us fight over scraps. We're in the end game of that process right now. The bait and switch already happened. They called it trickle down economics.
I don't defend "trickle down." However, while there is undue political influence by monied interests, private enterprise continues to provide the best way to raise the living standards of most people, and socialism is not the answer to the problems we have, which are not due to capitalism itself, but to how we manage our system of government. Our constitution still provides a pretty good road map, if we would better use what it provides.
What's your proof that that is the ultimate goal of the DSA or their candidates is actual communism? I know they have some communists in their membership but I have yet to see proof that say Mandami has a secret plan to end private property.
As to your point about definitions I think you are mixing them up socialism is defined by providing social support for people. It is not, and has never been, incompatible with markets only unregulated ones. Communism does believe in ending private wealth and it is true that Marx defined socialism as a step towards Communism but he also saw a dictatorship of the proletariat as a necessary step to Democracy and that has been falsified by the 20th century.
I did not say communism. I said socialism. Communism is one category within the broader ideology of socialism. In the Marxist conception, socialism is a transitional phase toward communism. According to former leaders of the DSA, some of the DSA's leadership is no Marxist.
I'm assuming you meant "now Marxist". And I already said that Marx saw socialism as a transitional step, see above.
As to the broader point, I will grant that some DSA members even some people in leadership positions are Marxists. But that is not proof that the whole enterprise is driven by this secret goal. Nor is there any indication that this is a Manchurian Candidate kind of situation. Do some people want that? Sure, but so what? There's always some Trotskyist in the room even at bowling it does not mean everyone will go that way.
Sure. And MAGA is the more immediate threat right now. But the Dems should not sleep on socialism. All socialism is illiberal, and thus inimical to the principles upon which the US constitution is based. The goal of the DSA is to take over the Democratic Party and ultimately to impose socialism on the US.
I disagree with the claim that all socialism is inherently illiberal. You can have socialism that is married to well regulated markets and freedom of speech. Is it a balancing act? Sure. But we've balanced socialist policies with freedom for generations.
Marx and all the anti-communists are wrong to claim that socialism leads inevitably to communism it does not. And while I agree DSA wants to take over the Democratic party the people they keep getting elected do not in fact seek to become communists so even if they did I don't see this as being a crisis.
I never said the socialism leads inevitably to communism, and it is not my understanding that Marx claimed socialism leads inevitably to communism, only that he thought socialism was a necessary transitional phase to get to communism. I don't buy the "mixed economy" arguments. Welfare and public services are not socialism, and socialism and capitalism are inimical to one another. Socialism seeks to end private enterprise and private wealth accumulation, which it views as evil and counter to its goal of "social justice." Any socialist who claims to be tolerating capitalism is only biding his time until he can replace it with socialism.
Many are not even aware of the standard definition of socialism. The DSA tries to sell voters social democracy. However, democratic socialists view social democracy as a transitional stage toward socialism, and that is the explicit goal of the DSA.
thanks for this detailed discussion. (I don't get why anyone would take Chait seriously at any point in his career. But he is very plainly offering a fright-take on DSA and leftists in general, which helps make things clear for your argument.) I too, like Jo-Ann Mort, am a very long-term member of DSA, and before that DSOC, but not in an active, let alone a leadershp, role. I take her argument about vanguardism seriously, and would love to see some further discussion on your substack, if that's not too 'deep in the weeds.'
Excellent essay. Understanding the opposition is crucial (and as a fiction writer too I know the importance in developing believable characters who may be reprehensible to my own point of view). Unfortunately we live in a world of sound bites, not sound research. Finding a commonality with the other is difficult and time consuming. But sometimes seeing a tiny grain of truth is the first step in a shared humanity. It's tough!
Open question inspired by the first paragraph: what are some other common caricatures of one's political opponents, and what nuances are they missing? We're a smart commentariat, we can crowdsource a good list...
I guess it's inherent to all "centrists" to think they occupy a neutral, flavourless, common sense position rather than one which is heavily contingent on context and the longstanding ideologies of their locale, but I do find it fascinating how American centrists never seem to reflect on how their positions would be considered (very) right-wing in most of the rest of the democratic world.
I'm a DSA critic and I think I understand that movement fairly well, but this was an informative and good read. I do think there are a few things that could've been expanded on.
The DSA is most often associated with gentrification and newer urban residents who tend to be white. These residents often signal heavy to the left on issues like BLM and a much farther to the left on issues of public safety than minority and traditional working-class communities. Their candidates also tend to be transplants with weak connections to the cities they run in. This creates the dynamic of representing the demographic many see as most responsible for the affordability crisis in housing while simultaneously telling them they know the cities they've lived in their whole lives much better than him. There is often a mutual disdain between the rooted and normally more moderate voter and the progressive transplant. This can extend to the types of restaurants they tend to dine in and levels of religious observance. There is little that connects the two.
The second issue is the world of theory juxtaposed against lived realities. If you have grown up in many neighborhoods crime, drugs, shortcomings in public education, elder care issues, seeing endless nonprofits grifters come through aren't abstract. They're your lived reality. Because these matters aren't the lived reality of much of the DSA base there discussion and remedies tends to be academic and come off as patronizing and performative.
The third issue I think you downplay is the issue of tankies and the tendency of many in this camp to take favorable stances towards any despotic regime seen as hostile to the United States. This includes North Korea, Iran, Cuba, and Maduro Era Venezuela. This has been coupled with a defense of revolutionary violence and a moral framework that excuses the atrocities of Hamas as well. Of course this type of discourse has a long history among the American Left and includes defenses of Stalin at the height of The Great Terror and attempting to explain away the Cambodian Genocide under Pol Pot. A very natural reaction to this is to not want such people anywhere near the levers of power and to be skeptical of candidates they canvas for. If your most energetic supporters hold such views publicly then there is a good chance you do privately.
I will add that you accurately assess Jonathan Chait and the Clinton- Obama Era shortcomings. The Democratic Party became increasingly out of touch with working-class and middle-class Americans as it doubled down on free trade, Wall Street economics, Big Tech,and the social values of Diddy Parties, Ivy League academics, and affluent coastal secularists. The DSA is a product of most of those things themselves so it's difficult to see how they can connect with working-class Americans; but the shortcomings of the Democratic Party are real and not sustainable. The party is adrift, has been repeatedly pimp slapped and choked by President Trump, and is looking for saviors. My assessment is the DSA are more Sabbatai Zevi than Nazarene or anything of familiarity at 770.
Those online political tests always put me somewhere between the left and far left. I live in one of the more publicly leftist cities (the operation of any liberal city is more bureaucratically moderate in the background) and I’m a mainstream writer. So most of my close friends are on the left and at least sympathetic to the DSA. And the key attribute of those friends is the romanticization of politics. They are, in an unrecognized way, very patriotic. They truly believe that things can be better, that the United States is fully capable of getting better. While believing that the USA has already greatly improved over the decades, I’m far more cynical about that process. I might share a lot of political beliefs with my DSA and DSA-adjacent friends but I do not share their love and admiration of certain politicians.
I'd be interested to hear your opinion of what the future for the US actually does look like. BTW, do you have any opinions about Kshama Sawant v. Melissa Chaudry in Seattle?
My very general prediction: Too many of my compatriots on the left think leftist politics can win Presidential elections.
Love your work as an author!
Thanks!
I think that’s the right attitude. It’s important to simultaneously reject nihilism, but also not to be naïve regarding the reality of politics in contemporary America. Either of these attitudes can be devastatingly disempowering, in different ways.
Hi Ross, as one of the oldsters you mention-a founder of DSA, former chair of the NY Local, former vice chair, director of the Democratic Party work in the old DSA, and a very , very close ally of Michael Harrington's-I'd be happy to talk to you. I don't think it is as simple to say that Mike would be delighted with the newly elected DSA members. It's much more complicated than that. Mike saw the Democratic Party as the closest thing that the US had /has to a mass social democratic movement with all of the social forces contained within--that's why he chose to create DSOC and then DSA to work inside the party not, a third party, but the ripping down and rush to overtake some old alliances are more problemmatic, I think for the old DSA strategy--as well as what we had which was a deep believe in expanding democracy, not allowing vanguardism to exist within the organization... happy to engage more on this- Jo-Ann Mort
Socialism is the "cure" that is worse than the illness. It is antithetical to liberal democracy, and socialists trying to run as Democrats only helps to undermine the only major political party in the US that still stands for liberal democracy.
Is that why socialists have been treated so illiberaly by the US over the years? History kinda suggests your point is projection.
Socialists are illiberal. However, socialists have, with a very few exceptions, not been treated illiberal. They are free to promote their illiberal ideas, but not to impose them.
Eugene Debs would disagree. As around the 20% of Americans investigated for communist sympathies by their employers during the red scare. Also federal infiltration and monitoring of socialist groups, communist control act of 1954, use of cops and military to break strikes...
I'm not sure if you are ignorant of the history or just handwaving it, but I strongly disagree that it's the socialists who have been the illiberals in American history.
Debs was one of the rare exceptions to which I was referring. We have learned more and done better since then. As for communism, there was a very real threat from USSR and China, and those countries were trying to undermine US interests from within and without the US. Yes, there was an over-reaction in the US, but that doesn't diminish the real threat that existed.
The 1954 law is still active and on the books. Even if people expected it would fail under constitutional challenge, so they say 'technically'. I guess it's a question of how much you trust the supreme court these days.
So wanting people to have healthcare is antithetical to liberal democracy? Sure, that makes perfect sense. Not at all hyperbolic.
The Stalinist left during the 30s and 40s was perhaps the biggest supporter of civil rights for black Americans during that time while they worked to undermine American democracy. Standing for one or two good ideas when your fundamental platform will undermine liberal democracy overall does not make justify support. The myopia of One-issue voters (see, e.g., on the other side, Jews who voted for Trump because of Israel) do little to add to the health of our system.
You miss the contradiction here - what was more likely to undermine American democracy: the Stalinist left or de facto and de jure segregation within institutions, both public and private? Solve the latter, and you have little to worry about from the former, which might explain why people like Hupert Humphery's quickly got to work on building a case for civil rights in the 40s.
You utterly miss the point.
You miss the point entirely.
I share the general disgust with the DNC and how it has managed to take the party further and further away from where a solid, good-faith electorate stands. But I have a major concern regarding the funding of positions that have been strengthening the DSA. Much of the current growing strength of the DSA seems have come from a revolt against the Democratic Party’s support for Israel in the wake of the Netanyahu government inhumane handling of Gaza. However, so many of the anti-Israel websites and TikTok sites funding can be traced to Qatar. Similarly, Qatar is now the largest single foreign government funding U.S. college campuses. In short, the so-called spontaneous pro-Palestinian demonstrations (which began immediately after the October 7 massacre by Hamas — even before Israel launched its military response) appear to be the result of Qatar funding. If, in fact, these pro-Palestinian efforts allow such dangerous nitwits as Hasan Piker and Darializa Chevalier to erode the Democratic Party (Michigan, anyone?), this will only serve to allow the Trump kleptocracy to move this country closer to authoritarianism.
Lmao
Do you have sources for the Qatar stuff? I'm sure there's some truth to what you said, but the claim that the demonstrations were effectively orchestrated is quite a strong one and needs serious evidence.
You know, it's entirely possible for people to be disgusted by genocide with or without your Qatari bogeyman. Even if you're right, how is that any worse than being funded by AIPAC?
I think the voters who are registered Dems or Dem leaning are rightly disgusting by the triangulation and lack of core principles and the Unwillingness to fight Trump that is exhibited daily by the Dem establishment. It doesn ‘t follow that these voters are supportive of DSA style socialism just because many of these candidates bring the fight that voters want to see in this era of Trump. A return to classic liberal democracy is what is needed to create an environment where progressive ideas can flourish. DSA has a number of good ideas, but as Mamdani has demonstrated thus far as Mayor, compromise is needed to advance the policies that spring from these ideas to fruition. From where I sit, MAGA and DSA are temperamentally similar despite the ideological differences
Unfortunately, as so many have pointed out, the Democratic Party’s leadership does not seem to be learning the necessary lessons. So few democrats in congress spoke up in favor of the common sense ruling by the Supreme Court allowing states to prohibit trans women from participating in women’s athletics. In other words, the party remains a captive of vociferous, but tiny minority positions such as the radical trans community. The party will be sapped by a lack of sensible leadership that allows the DSA-types to eat away at its overall support. By the time some reasonable alternative emerges from the wreckage, the Trump reign may well have rendered this country virtually unrecognizable.
Seriously man, these so called 'moderates' just can't resist any opportunity to shit on trans people. One of the core bedrock principles of liberalism is that if anyone's rights can be violated, then everyone's rights can be violated. "First they came for the communists, yada yada." If we start throwing marginalized communities overboard for the sake of appeasing low-key bigots, then what do we even stand for anymore?
Way to try and make fucking over vulnerable people the 'common sense' thing that everyone should agree on.
DSA in 2026 = Tea Party in 2009. Illiberal, uncompromising and unpopular nationally.
So... On the path towards national victory?
Victory that has only hurt America, yes.
He's right about one thing. I'm a centrist, in favor of sensible, good faith exercise of government. I'd like to see a healthcare system that pushes the insurance companies aside, that is funded by the gov't, but allows the providers to be outside the gov't, kind of like a bunch of 501(3)c's. I'd like sensible gun legislation. I'd like decentralized education, again gov't funded but locally run. I'd like us to really help Ukraine. I'd like to see away where we disconnect with many of the Mideast countries. Etc.
AND ... I'm no longer a fan of the national Democratic Party. All they do is harass me for money, but for the life of me I can't figure what they do with it.
I’m not sure those make you centrist, as much as you want to be labeled as one
I too wanted to think of myself as an old-fashioned classical liberal until fairly recently. I hoped against hope that after 2016 the Democratic party would learn their lesson and make the structural changes that were necessary to defeat Trump once and for all. Instead they doubled down on the same old stale crusty tone-deaf rhetoric that the donors and consultants love to hear. My position now is that if they're not going to make the change, we have to do it for them. The center is dying and future is either going to be fascist or socialist. I know which side I'm on.
I don’t agree that the center is dying. Many voters like centrist policies that actually serve people. What they don’t like are consultant and focus group driven and created policies because these aren’t coherent policies at all, just concessions to monied interests. A good example of a so called progressive policy that doesn’t actually poll well among Dem voters is abolish the police. This was quite fashionable for socialists and ultra progressives to tout in the post George Floyd era. The irony was the black people the progressives imagined an abolish the police stance would help, were opposed to su h a policy because without the police many of these candidates bring communities these voters live in would become outright lawless
Yeah, and you'll notice that 'defund the police' is no longer on anyone's front page anymore. Progressives recognized that that was a dead end and course corrected. Unlike the democratic party at large for the last 10 years. And because the democratic party has drifted so far to the right, basic liberal policies that would have been completely uncontroversial in the 1950s are now defined as radical left extremism. Bernie Sanders would have been considered a boring moderate during the New Deal era. Now he is beyond the pale precisely because the 'center' has lost its legitimacy and decided to die on this hill rather than give an inch to progressives.
But what you just described "consultant and focus group driven and created policies" *is* centrism as it actually exists.
I agree with you that most people are generally moderate in their views on many topics. Abolishing the police certainly fits there though redirecting funding to other social programs (what say Mandami is actually doing) does poll well once people see the funding in the other places.
But when it comes to "centrism" as practiced by Chait or Schumer or the other proud centrists it is not for anything other than being performatively halfway between here and there. The only way to do that is to drive yourself by polling first and goals second. At the end of the day that will always feel empty to people, and it makes you vulnerable to whoever drags the Overton window to the right. Whether wittingly or not it means that they end up validating the worst charges against themselves by, say, mildly criticizing ICE training after they shoot someone in the face. Small wonder that people seeking actual change or a moral stand look elsewhere.
Good piece, Ross. It does seem that the press mandarins and would be mandarins are not just ignorant. They want to frame DSA and socialism as gentrifiers or feckless radicals. It suits them that the world is like that, its their world and they resist change. Why do journalists who would presumably support something like a more robust new deal get scared and huffy about those who are working toward it?
Perhaps because the people working toward it are threatening to upend the world that the journalists live in. Consider Chait or Yglesias. They are not really journalists per se, they don't break stories or do interviews, they are pundits. They are paid for their opinions. Both have long ties to the existing Democratic party and their capacity to maintain those ties is key to their position. Yglesias, for example, met with Biden staffers when he was in the White House and he was connected with the Harris campaign. He made a point of declaring that she was guaranteed victory because she was running the optimal centrist campaign. That isn't about journalism, that is about access.
The people running DSA or the Mandami campaign do not have Chait or Yglesias on speed dial, indeed it's not even clear they care what either one thinks. This puts the well paid centrists in the position of outsider which they are not used to and it reduces them to mostly claiming that this or that candidate is too far out of the "mainstream" to win (then watching them win) or claiming that this or that policy "will never work" (see Universal Healthcare) only to see it become more and more popular. This is not to say that their criticisms aren't sometimes right but I would argue that they come more from defending the in-group rather than any policy. Indeed Chait's most recent criticism of DSA and their call for universal Healthcare has a big "hey we tried!" feeling to it.
The irony of a piece talking about knowing your enemy failing to effectively steelman them
Democratic socialism is not some kinder, gentler form of socialism. It is socialism in the textbook sense of public ownership of the means of production via the state, which is the explicit goal of the DSA. Democratic socialists see social democracy as a transitional stage toward socialism. They sell social democracy to voters, but their goal is still to eliminate private enterprise and private wealth when they can. It is a game of bait and switch with an ignorant faction of voters that is especially frustrated with the status quo. A lot of progressives can't even accurately define terms such as socialism, communism, capitalism, fascism, liberalism, etc. Nor can a lot of MAGAs, for that matter.
Public goods are under supplied by markets and thus must be produced by governments. This is like, econ 101.
That is nonsensical.
Have you taken economics? Do you know the definition of a public good?
Yes, and I repeat that your statement is nonsensical.
Well, you've pretty obviously forgotten it in favor of ideology then. Maybe go look up the definition and refresh yourself.
It is not the definition of a public good that I am addressing. It is the context in which you use the term which makes no sense.
Sure sure, and watching this country drift into corporate feudalism for the last 50 years is better how? Without redistribution of wealth, you inevitably end up in a situation where a handful of sociopaths own everything while the rest of us fight over scraps. We're in the end game of that process right now. The bait and switch already happened. They called it trickle down economics.
I don't defend "trickle down." However, while there is undue political influence by monied interests, private enterprise continues to provide the best way to raise the living standards of most people, and socialism is not the answer to the problems we have, which are not due to capitalism itself, but to how we manage our system of government. Our constitution still provides a pretty good road map, if we would better use what it provides.
What's your proof that that is the ultimate goal of the DSA or their candidates is actual communism? I know they have some communists in their membership but I have yet to see proof that say Mandami has a secret plan to end private property.
As to your point about definitions I think you are mixing them up socialism is defined by providing social support for people. It is not, and has never been, incompatible with markets only unregulated ones. Communism does believe in ending private wealth and it is true that Marx defined socialism as a step towards Communism but he also saw a dictatorship of the proletariat as a necessary step to Democracy and that has been falsified by the 20th century.
I did not say communism. I said socialism. Communism is one category within the broader ideology of socialism. In the Marxist conception, socialism is a transitional phase toward communism. According to former leaders of the DSA, some of the DSA's leadership is no Marxist.
I'm assuming you meant "now Marxist". And I already said that Marx saw socialism as a transitional step, see above.
As to the broader point, I will grant that some DSA members even some people in leadership positions are Marxists. But that is not proof that the whole enterprise is driven by this secret goal. Nor is there any indication that this is a Manchurian Candidate kind of situation. Do some people want that? Sure, but so what? There's always some Trotskyist in the room even at bowling it does not mean everyone will go that way.
Sure. And MAGA is the more immediate threat right now. But the Dems should not sleep on socialism. All socialism is illiberal, and thus inimical to the principles upon which the US constitution is based. The goal of the DSA is to take over the Democratic Party and ultimately to impose socialism on the US.
I disagree with the claim that all socialism is inherently illiberal. You can have socialism that is married to well regulated markets and freedom of speech. Is it a balancing act? Sure. But we've balanced socialist policies with freedom for generations.
Marx and all the anti-communists are wrong to claim that socialism leads inevitably to communism it does not. And while I agree DSA wants to take over the Democratic party the people they keep getting elected do not in fact seek to become communists so even if they did I don't see this as being a crisis.
I never said the socialism leads inevitably to communism, and it is not my understanding that Marx claimed socialism leads inevitably to communism, only that he thought socialism was a necessary transitional phase to get to communism. I don't buy the "mixed economy" arguments. Welfare and public services are not socialism, and socialism and capitalism are inimical to one another. Socialism seeks to end private enterprise and private wealth accumulation, which it views as evil and counter to its goal of "social justice." Any socialist who claims to be tolerating capitalism is only biding his time until he can replace it with socialism.
that's why people like it, they're like yeah... give me that money
Many are not even aware of the standard definition of socialism. The DSA tries to sell voters social democracy. However, democratic socialists view social democracy as a transitional stage toward socialism, and that is the explicit goal of the DSA.
thanks for this detailed discussion. (I don't get why anyone would take Chait seriously at any point in his career. But he is very plainly offering a fright-take on DSA and leftists in general, which helps make things clear for your argument.) I too, like Jo-Ann Mort, am a very long-term member of DSA, and before that DSOC, but not in an active, let alone a leadershp, role. I take her argument about vanguardism seriously, and would love to see some further discussion on your substack, if that's not too 'deep in the weeds.'
Socialism is the "cure" that is worse than the illness.
Excellent essay. Understanding the opposition is crucial (and as a fiction writer too I know the importance in developing believable characters who may be reprehensible to my own point of view). Unfortunately we live in a world of sound bites, not sound research. Finding a commonality with the other is difficult and time consuming. But sometimes seeing a tiny grain of truth is the first step in a shared humanity. It's tough!
Open question inspired by the first paragraph: what are some other common caricatures of one's political opponents, and what nuances are they missing? We're a smart commentariat, we can crowdsource a good list...
Public ownership of the means of production is logical in cases where what is produced is a public good.
Does that help?
I guess it's inherent to all "centrists" to think they occupy a neutral, flavourless, common sense position rather than one which is heavily contingent on context and the longstanding ideologies of their locale, but I do find it fascinating how American centrists never seem to reflect on how their positions would be considered (very) right-wing in most of the rest of the democratic world.
Victory none the less. And if the tea party/Trump hurt America, then we'd best be getting some people who will pull us in the other direction.
I'm a DSA critic and I think I understand that movement fairly well, but this was an informative and good read. I do think there are a few things that could've been expanded on.
The DSA is most often associated with gentrification and newer urban residents who tend to be white. These residents often signal heavy to the left on issues like BLM and a much farther to the left on issues of public safety than minority and traditional working-class communities. Their candidates also tend to be transplants with weak connections to the cities they run in. This creates the dynamic of representing the demographic many see as most responsible for the affordability crisis in housing while simultaneously telling them they know the cities they've lived in their whole lives much better than him. There is often a mutual disdain between the rooted and normally more moderate voter and the progressive transplant. This can extend to the types of restaurants they tend to dine in and levels of religious observance. There is little that connects the two.
The second issue is the world of theory juxtaposed against lived realities. If you have grown up in many neighborhoods crime, drugs, shortcomings in public education, elder care issues, seeing endless nonprofits grifters come through aren't abstract. They're your lived reality. Because these matters aren't the lived reality of much of the DSA base there discussion and remedies tends to be academic and come off as patronizing and performative.
The third issue I think you downplay is the issue of tankies and the tendency of many in this camp to take favorable stances towards any despotic regime seen as hostile to the United States. This includes North Korea, Iran, Cuba, and Maduro Era Venezuela. This has been coupled with a defense of revolutionary violence and a moral framework that excuses the atrocities of Hamas as well. Of course this type of discourse has a long history among the American Left and includes defenses of Stalin at the height of The Great Terror and attempting to explain away the Cambodian Genocide under Pol Pot. A very natural reaction to this is to not want such people anywhere near the levers of power and to be skeptical of candidates they canvas for. If your most energetic supporters hold such views publicly then there is a good chance you do privately.
I will add that you accurately assess Jonathan Chait and the Clinton- Obama Era shortcomings. The Democratic Party became increasingly out of touch with working-class and middle-class Americans as it doubled down on free trade, Wall Street economics, Big Tech,and the social values of Diddy Parties, Ivy League academics, and affluent coastal secularists. The DSA is a product of most of those things themselves so it's difficult to see how they can connect with working-class Americans; but the shortcomings of the Democratic Party are real and not sustainable. The party is adrift, has been repeatedly pimp slapped and choked by President Trump, and is looking for saviors. My assessment is the DSA are more Sabbatai Zevi than Nazarene or anything of familiarity at 770.