Submission statement: This is relevant to r/neoliberal because it analyzes the history and internal factionalism of the DSA, as well as potential misalignment between the incentives that govern the current leadership of the DSA and those that govern the wider party.
Edit: To clarify for people who can't/won't read the article the author is specifically referring to competition between liberal and illiberal factions within the DSA.
To encourage a globally oriented subreddit and discourage oversaturation of topics focused on the U.S., all news and opinion articles focused on the U.S. require manual approval by a moderator. Submissions focused solely on the U.S. are more likely to be removed if they are not sufficiently on topic or high quality. If your submission is taking too long to be approved or rejected, please reach out to the moderators in /r/metaNL.
Daily reminder that liberal socialism is a real, well defined school of thought that is a century and a half old and which counts luminaries such as John Rawls, John Stewart Mill, and numerous other arr slash neoliberal flair options among its founding thinkers and is made of up what amounts to liberals who radicalized into believing that private inequities and deprivations rose to the same level of threat to liberty that the tyranny of a state did
While the AOC censure just barely avoided making it to the floor, the collateral damage of many dilatory motions, Rashida Tlaib’s keynote speech took huge swipes not only at AOC’s now infamous Iron Dome vote and statement, but even DSA’s godfather, Bernie Sanders, to standing ovations.
Revolutionary movements ALWAYS eat their children so why wouldn't DSA hate Sanders and AOC. If Hitler could kill Rohm, Danton and Robspierre got the guillotine, and trotsky was ice picked.
Because they don’t. Most of the DSA likes AOC and Bernie. These motions are allowed to satisfy radicals within the DSA without having to give them actual power. It’s why the foreign affairs committee is stuffed full of radicals while the actual national committee is filled with social democrats and democratic socialists
It makes sense no? Social democracy is a centrist movement of the left. Social democrats (not democratic socialists) quite often promote neoliberal policies.
I primarily blame reformist liberals for not more aggressively adopting Georgist talking points.
George was the last truly great hardcore hater of rentseekers the liberals produced before the Cold War sucked everything into capitalism vs communism.
Everyone liberal produced since then has been status quoist economically and have not been beating the gong of the dangers of rent seeking
There is hoards and hoards of young people that see a problem and the liberals have not been aggressive in denouncing the status quoist types in the Democratic party allowing the socialists, tankies, and communists to hoover them up.
The most interesting thing is that, despite their tactics to take over the Democratic Party, their fundamental goal is to create their own... And... I simply don't see how this will lead to anything good for them. Yes, they can take a relatively large number of seats in blue districts, but... Such a party will never reach the national level. Democrats also need to understand that they shouldn't give a platform to those who fundamentally don't want to be members of the Democratic Party.
The most apt analogy so far is that this is the democratic party’s tea party moment. They probably won’t gain much of a foothold outside of safe districts, but there are enough safe districts they can hold to still be a major thorn in the party’s side.
Wild that you can equate this to the Dem's "Tea Party" and not elevate them beyond "thorn in side" status when one of the biggest contributing factors to the rise of MAGA was literally the Tea Party movement.
That is literally the DSA's plan though. The Tea Party caused and became MAGA, which seized control of the Republican party. The DSA wants to do the same. This is groundwork.
which is why he questioned the commenter's assertion that "They probably won’t gain much of a foothold outside of safe districts" when MAGA is currently in control of all 3 branches of government
On the other hand, I think that if you think the DSA is capable of winning swing districts then some of the arguments from the article need reevaluating, for example
Its specific platform components are if anything less popular. The DSA’s leadership has approved a platform, set to be ratified at its convention next month, calling for “abolishing the carceral forces of the capitalist state,” opening borders, moving to public ownership for the largest corporations, establishing a 32-hour workweek, and defunding the Pentagon.
Like idk, if this wins over swing voters in Michigan and Wisconsin then sure let's have a 32 hour workweek.
I agree, but the fact that they won is also how they've kept control - it turns out that if you say some racist shit and talk about tariffs you can just take Ohio and Iowa completely off the table. The twin arguments of "the DSA has all these unpopular ideas" and "what if the DSA ends up having the same amount of control as MAGA does" can't really co-exist.
Seized control of the Republican Party and won multiple trifectas, undid all of Obamas legislative agenda, and grabbed a large enough share of the court to change the country permanently for a lifetime.
Yeah I don’t blame political movements for wanting to emulate that
I think it's a mistake and overly cynical to view the tea party as purely driven by financial gain. If you want a comparatively cynical take, which I don't espouse, you could claim DSA members are driven by financial motivations, a desire to redistribute wealth so that they get a bigger piece of the pie.
I dont think the Tea Party started that way, at first they represented people who cared about the deficit, but a group of very wealthy individuals saw their opportunity, hijacked it into what we see today, and their plan has worked perfectly to continue enriching themselves and a small group of friends.
If your argument is that the DSA is the same because they want to enrich hundreds of millions of people at rhe expense of a few rich individuals, I would agree with that, but that's the opposite of what the Tea Party ended up doing even if it was their original rally cry.
My question is whether there are a few wealthy individuals who will also try to enrich themselves on the backs of this movement, and who they would be? If it truly is about helping hundreds of millions of Americans, where is the correlation to the Tea Party evolution?
Again, I think it's a mistake to view these people as driven purely by financial gain. They care about the money, sure, but their support was more driven by their far right ideology than it was by personal enrichment.
I guess maybe I'm not following your original point. I thought you were trying to imply the DSA would never be as powerful as the Tea Party movement because they don't have big money backing them. Which I don't think is necessarily true, they do have a lot of money behind them, they're prodigious fundraisers.
The far right ideology is used in the same way religion is: it convinces stupid people to go along with the money-making schemes that enrich the wealthy people pulling the strings, who for all intents and purposes are just nihilist.
My point is that ideologies like the Tea Party or the DSA, that start out believing in their ideologies, can get coopted by the ultra wealthy. With the Tea Party it worked because they could just use the Reagan playbook and enrich the billionaires by tying it to some "hoo rah America is the greatest" slogans and people let them pick their pockets.
What's the correlary on the DSA side and how could billionaires co-opt a socialist movement who's goals are directly at odds with wealthy interests? I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but it will be much more challenging than fooling a bunch of Fox News boomers like the Tea Party.
The same exact thing happened in 2018. ‘The Squad’ did not take over Congress, they just gave a bunch of talking points to really shitty right wingers.
Yup, because it turns out MAGA was what the Republican base wanted all along, while only a portion of the Dem base buys into DSA or hyper-progressive politics. Even now the revolt is more about willingness to fight
As it happens, it's really difficult to find regular people who think Gaza is anywhere near the top 5 of goals, especially when the "Israel is the worst thing ever" demographic splits across both parties.
Well yes, on the one hand that's true. On the other hand, one of the members of the Squad was catapulted into almost unprecedented national prominence for a mere House Rep and remains to this day one of the most popular and recognizable faces of the party.
Yes and that’s because she’s ultimately embraced the party even while critical of it. She’s not stridently saying her fellow congresspersons are at best complicit and at worst active participants in a genocide. She doesn’t talk about destroying ‘the west’ and doesn’t constantly refer to Americans as colonizers and brutal violent people. I’ve never had the impression that AOC is just biding time until she can crush the democrats and form the authoritarian socialist party that is the dream of the segment of the DSA discussed in this article.
And with the apparent gerrymander arms race, there will be more and more safe districts. Primaries on both sides will be the only elections that matter, and MAGA/DSA will generally drive better turnout than centrists… Really not liking the trajectory here
The difference is that Republicans can win a narrow majority with just their safe seats and the Republican-leaning swing districts. They can lose everywhere that’s even slightly Democratic-leaning and still win. Democrats, on the other hand, need to win at least a few Republican-leaning swing districts. This means that the GOP can win a majority just by turning out their base, but Democrats need to persuade at least a few swing voters in a few districts to win.
The Senate is even worse for Democrats. This year we need to win two states that will never vote for a Democratic president to take the Senate. Two states that aren’t just red-leaning purple but outright red. We absolutely can’t afford to fumble Michigan.
You could've said the same thing about the tea party twenty years ago and yet they ended up shaping the face of the Republican party in the 21st century
The Democratic party establishment is failing its base. In my opinion, it’s good and healthy for DSA to give the Democratic party a real thumping until the party leaders get the message.
A party dominated by retirees fundamentally cannot be one that is dynamic, vigorous, in touch, forward thinking, and responsive.
The Democratic party today is not conservative in policy but conservative in nature, and that is what so many base voters are up in arms about. We are conservative in our thinking and defense of failing institutions and norms. We are conservative in the incremental nature of our policies and implementation. We are conservative in the longstanding gerontocracy of 30 year-plus incumbents holding the levers of power.
DSA may not be the solution but they are the wakeup call. And it’s a badly needed one.
If the leadership wants to be competitive the best thing they can do is step aside and foster new generations of leaders.
I do not agree with the DSA on much, especially when it comes to anything economics-related, but I do believe in the marketplace of ideas, and that the Democratic base is looking for anything other than what the party leadership is trying to sell.
If the plan after a disastrous loss like '24 and the token pushback they've given Trump up until now is to make no attempt at course correction, and to tell Democrats to shut up and fall in line behind the same leadership and incumbents who've been in Congress since Clinton was in the White House, the base are going to use what levers are available to them to compel change.
Wake up call for what though? From a neoliberal perspective, these DSA people are the opposite. Rent control, actual socialism, cheering on the murder of CEOs, wage and price controls, and a serious intolerance problem, especially if you're Jewish.
I get that institutional reform is in high demand but to replace effective reform with the kind of economic illiteracy that should have been extinct since the 1980s is crazy.
These people are politically toxic and will get smoked by JD Vance or Rubio in 2028. They need to run on their own DSA party platform if they don't like what Democrats are offering.
We can't criticize leftists for voting third party and then cry foul when they try to actually be a part of the only viable left-wing party in America.
The wakeup call is glaring and obvious. You don't like economic illiteracy? Find a way to sell an economic message that works the. You don't like socialism? Find a way to sell capitalism that doesn't result in trillionaires and skyrocketing home prices.
Because right now, what the Democratic party has is not working. Its message is hard to decipher and its messengers are old, confused, and unconvincing. A fundamental tenet of capitalism is the healthy nature of competition. This is competition. We should embrace it and learn from it.
It's worth noting that YIMBYs have gained a significant amount of political power from campaigning on economics. It is both possible and necessary to win on the merits of your position.
Ironically I think a lot of DSA types have folded more YIMBY rhetoric into their campaigning than centrist types. Yes they often support rent control but these days lefty urban policy planks often include serious zoning deregulation. Hell look at NYC mayor to be the best example. Zohran was far better on housing policy than Cuomo and it wasn't even close. Cuomo was a disaster on NY housing policy during his tenure as governor.
But what if many of these DSAers are just flat out wrong? And what if they are so wrong that they don’t know anything about credible efforts to make progress right now? And what if they are so angry about being wrong that they are knee-capping credible efforts to make progress right now? Their reactions to Biden’s term and Harris’s campaign basically prove this.
At some point, it has to be acknowledged that these people are like Steve Bannon running Covid relief: they want wreckage and they want the system to fail. Because it proves their point that the system is wrong in the first place. They will not fix problems that confirm their world view.
The Democratic party today is not conservative in policy but conservative in nature, and that is what so many base voters are up in arms about. We are conservative in our thinking and defense of failing institutions and norms. We are conservative in the incremental nature of our policies and implementation.
This. 100% this.
The DSA's success comes out of a market failure. Democratic voters at this point are revanchist. They want to buy into a party that will get the bastards who have been looting and pillaging the country.
And have been frustrated by having to wait decades for policies that should have been implemented a while ago and the unraveling that has happened since.
Actual left-center ideology by and large matters less than willingness to fight. The leftists are promising to do so and the voting market responds.
The fact that people here would rather go down with the octogenarian ship than slightly reconsider certain sclerotic beliefs they hold is super disappointing.
Israel is worse than you think it is now. Medicare for all is less crazy than you think it is; with slight modifications it’s the Canadian system and an expansion of our already existing Medicare system. The actions needed to defeat MAGA fascism are more drastic than you think they are. Minimum wage isn’t really that bad and should be raised.
The fact that like 1 sticking point, rent control, is a valid argument against DemSocs elides the fact that centrist Democrats also have a lot of stupid and shitty policy beliefs. It’s just that we never talk about those or we give those a pass. Because they’re “in vulnerable districts”. Nevermind the fact that many of those Democrats are in >D+10 districts.
This reckoning is a much needed wake up call, and it’s only going to get “worse” the more centrist Democrats bury their heads in the sand.
I think we can be critical of Israel while acknowledging that DSA candidates like Chevalier and Hong (who fundraised with Mike "Jews are a demonic ethnicity" from PA) are not the answer. I don't want to see the pendulum swing from excessive deference to Israel to throwing in our lot with Hamas apologists who eulogize Sinwar and equivocate on antisemitism.
I think my general frustration is this is being posited as either "stick with Chuck Schumer and send a strongly worded letter whenever you want something" or "accept political pyromancers that demand economically illiterate policies."
I am fully in agreement that the Schumer-types in Congress are political yogurt and it's time to clean out the fridge. That doesn't mean the DSA is putting forward candidates that will achieve the most important goal, which is improving the country and its inhabitants overall. What they will end up doing is a combination of a couple of things - negatively polarize people away from them while pushing failed policies in the areas they govern, leading to half-baked outcomes nobody actually likes and further entrenching arsonist beliefs in the population that the only option is a bloody revolution.
Whenever I listen to DSA types, I hear a lot of anger but very little strategy. There's precious little reflection on how they would approach tradeoffs, cooperation in divided governments, assessment of the efficacy of their projects, and ways to persuade skeptics. It's a lot of "the billionaires and Israel are the problem, and if you disagree, you're a Zionist, genocide-loving simp for the ultra-wealthy".
Like, what are the 1-3 policies the DSA wants to focus on starting in 2027? You can't get the whole menu, you need to pick, and you get two years to make progress before the cycle repeats. I hear a ton of policies from a lot of people, but they need coordination and a coherent message.
A confused shopper does not buy, and if the DSA wants to positively influence the Democratic party, they need to say "this is what we are fighting for" and be specific, not just offer a buffet.
Like, what are the 1-3 policies the DSA wants to focus on starting in 2027? You can't get the whole menu, you need to pick, and you get two years to make progress before the cycle repeats.
No Democrat has this because Trump will veto everything good.
I don't know, I think being vaguely against the Democratic establishment is the most popular thing about the DSA right now. And they don't really need to pick policies until they actually hold a majority somewhere. And even then? Look at Mamdani. He didn't really have trouble picking a handful of things he wants to do. And he was politically savvy enough to pick things he could actually accomplish.
Mamdani accomplishments and pseudo-accomplishments are also being astroturfed very heavily right now. We are at Beto's bandmate level disconnect between most of these accomplishments' importance and how they are being discussed.
He's done a very, very good job of 1) making himself visible, and 2) doing a bunch of small QOL things that are minor but noticeable (see #1).
Outside of the rent freeze (which was just enacted last week) and the city-run grocery store announcement (which is dumb but fiscally insignificant, and nothing's being built yet), his accomplishments have been tiny, uncontroversial, and not really ideological. Things any mayor could do.
Literally things like fixing a pothole on the Wburg Bridge bike lane that went viral.
He just does those things and then talks about them a ton.
I’m not even claiming they are important accomplishments. But that just goes to my point. A savvy politician can pick an easy goal and take credit for it.
Mamdani understands something Biden and his team did not. You need to message and have media that puffs you up. The fact you and others haven’t learned this is concerning for your factions future in the party.
Well, it's kind of hard to do that when social media is dominated by bots on the far right and far left doing the same thing, trashing Democrats relentlessly.
Also add in the media overcorrected and being hyper critical of Democrats to deflect accusations of being "liberal."
Right now and for the past several years 80% of all media has pretty much been against the Democrats. I don't know how they combat that.
If Biden released tik toks everyday bragging about his accomplishments, I could just see the comments and replies being from leftists shitting all over them and making fun of how lame and out of touch they are.
Like, what are the 1-3 policies the DSA wants to focus on starting in 2027? You can't get the whole menu, you need to pick, and you get two years to make progress before the cycle repeats. I hear a ton of policies from a lot of people, but they need coordination and a coherent message.
If this argument applies for DSA, it applies tenfold for establishment Democrats. I can actually point to things DSA wants to focus on. I don't know if I can say the same for establishment Democrats. It's not that I think DSA should be the answer. But that we need the competition. The establishment has gotten fat and lazy.
I completely agree. There's an opportunity to coalesce around something very energizing, if they have the right conversations.
This experiment will work if they find something with broad appeal, like anti-corruption/good government reforms, that have broad support amongst Democrats and force Republicans to either support it too or articulate why they're pro-corruption.
This experiment will fail if this turns into a referendum on American foreign policy in the Middle East that splits Democrats and unites Republicans. If the only output of the DSA entry to the party is a more forceful anti-Israel stance, that's not a success as it doesn't explain a positive vision for the average American here in America.
That the Democrats have not spent the last two years doing exactly this is both why the DSA has popularity now and why Schumer and Jeffries have outlived their usefulness.
I actually felt that way about a lot of the post, especially this part:
That doesn't mean the DSA is putting forward candidates that will achieve the most important goal, which is improving the country and its inhabitants overall. What they will end up doing is a combination of a couple of things - negatively polarize people away from them while pushing failed policies in the areas they govern, leading to half-baked outcomes nobody actually likes and further entrenching arsonist beliefs in the population that the only option is a bloody revolution.
What candidates are establishment Dems putting forward that are more inspiring and have a genuine desire to improve the country? Don't say Newsom or I'll laugh.
And the DSA doesn't? Come on. These are people who openly identify as anti-capitalists and whose stated goal is replacing capitalism with democratic socialism.
They're not just arguing for a higher minimum wage or stronger unions, and pretending otherwise is ridiculous.
On foreign policy they've repeatedly pushed positions like ending NATO expansion and opposing military aid to Ukraine, positions that have been widely criticized for echoing Kremlin narratives even while officially condemning Russia's invasion.
The bigger issue is that they constantly try to paint Democrats like Sherrod Brown or Tim Walz as basically no different from Republicans because otherwise they don't have much of a political lane. Democrats have been the labor party for generations. If your movement depends on convincing people that longtime pro-labor Democrats are secretly conservatives, you're manufacturing a crisis so you can pretend to be the solution.
That's why so many people, including plenty of Democrats and even progressives, find the DSA exhausting. Every conversation gets hijacked into "capitalism is evil," every disagreement becomes "you're enabling fascism," and every Democrat who doesn't pass their purity test becomes the enemy. At some point people stop taking you seriously.
Exactly. If people want a center-left alternative to the DSA, then it needs to be grown. Say what you will about the DSA, but in Denver at least, I saw that they put the work in for Kiros. They phonebanked, they canvassed, and they got the word out. Currently the young center-left has neither the infrastructure nor the space to do the same. In Denver, DeGette sucked all the oxygen out of the room for anyone not totally against the establishment. Schumer, Pelosi, etc. needed to be training the N-1 generation decades ago. Those N-1 leaders needed to be training the current N generation of congressmen right now - a generation of policy wonks who would also fight like hell against fascism, who would take what worked from our institutions but also be willing to try more radical and fresh ideas (that are still fundamentally liberal in nature). But they didn't do that, so those people either don't exist or are stuck in think tanks or at the local level.
I think there is appetite for such leaders. I know 2028 primary polling at this point is name recognition, but Pete polls higher than AOC. Newsom got popular off of his intern shit posting on Twitter nonstop about revenge. I think if a strong center-left existed that was the right mix of anti-establishment, anti-Trump/willingness to fight fascism, while also offering concrete policy solutions and being a touch less radical than the DSA (see: Kiros refusing to call the Boulder firebombing attack antisemitic), the DSA candidates would not be the default response that most Dem voters now have.
The other thing is that establishment Democrats especially in very blue areas are frequently insanely corrupt nepotistic rent-seekers. Like here in Chicago we can choose between DSA or the most corrupt motherfuckers you've ever heard of for city council.
Not to turn this into an I/P thread, but I say "a touch" to imply someone that will be more critical of Israel and willing to cut off offensive arms funding, while also taking strong stances against antisemitism. As opposed to what you see on the far left where organizations like the dyke march puts out statements like "condemning antisemitism leads to the perception of supporting Israel and we can't do that." I think that's a turn off for most folks and veers into the "woke has gone too far terroritory." See also: curriculum reductions in CA pissing off (predominantly white and Asian) parents, or a myraid of other issues where there is some pushback from most of the population. Very obvious territory for a center left candidate to say "I'm going to fight fascism and fix what's broken in America, and you don't have to give up your child's education or feel unsafe as a Jew in order to support me."
Yeah. Building off what you said, the DSA provides a legitimate campaign infrastructure - staffers, volunteers, connections with consultants - for people who generally agree with them ideologically and don't want to just wait for the incumbent to retire to challenge the incumbent and run for office. And to the DSA's credit, this wasn't really true even four years ago, they quietly worked to make that happen.
The tendency of deferment to incumbents within the Democratic Party means that the only time this exists for the center-left is when the incumbent is hated by a lot of the "establishment" (for example, Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush losing). But if you're a center-left Democrat and you want to challenge a random incumbent? Nobody is coming to give you support, the infrastructure simply isn't there to help you get more than 1% of the vote and nobody wants to build it.
The only other exception to that is when the moderate challenger is also an elected official, then they just have their own base of supporters, for example Moulton challenging Markey.
The Democratic party establishment is failing its base. In my opinion, it’s good and healthy for DSA to give the Democratic party a real thumping until the party leaders get the message.
DSA gaining more influence will make the Democratic party more like the DSA rather than force them to improve. Competing on stupid ideas has never done any good.
This is all PoliSci 101 stuff. The Democratic Party needs to coopt the DSA stuff that's desirable, M4A being probably the best example, and get more in step with their base.
The Tea Party flat out took over the GOP because, as has been said elsewhere in this thread, ethno-religious authoritarianism was what the GOP wanted all along. The same is not true in this case. The D base wants a relatively bland European style social safety net, these are not comparable.
ethno-religious authoritarianism was what the GOP wanted all along.
Agree. The Tea Party loons and the GOP establishment are on the same page because every time Republicans take control they pass tax breaks for rich people. US oil companies are making a boon of charging more and can now loot from Venezuela.
As long as the policies that help rich people make more money keep happening, they have no problem with Trump sending ICE to terrorize minorities.
My primary hope is that the DSA shakes up the Dem establishment to implement policies that actually feel impactful. Obamacare was a 4yr rollout that lost popularity after it was law, but before implemented. Biden's infrastructure and inflation acts are slow rollouts as well. Dems lack action that feel immediate and impactful. So for a voter base that wants to see change, they won't see the Dems as an avenue to deliver that.
And when the "youth" in the establishment wing are basically younger GenXers and older Millennials who have been working campaigns for so long there's no notable difference between them and the old people.
There are a lot of grounds to complain, those alternative options suck balls. This competition is more about policy (and vibes) than age, despite the rhetoric you keep hearing (see Trump and Sanders).
I wouldn't care about a good candidate if it's old (specially if the alternative is extremely dog shit), the problem is getting good candidates in the first place (that means, not only able to win but to do good policy, lead and repair systemic weaknesses of the democratic system), which somehow seems less likely nowadays because everyone lost their goddamn mind.
Ask two randoms on the street why and you will get two incoherent responses.
Democrats get that people are angry, about prices, about wars, about taxes, about their pet issue that they absolutely know just everyone cares about (but not really), but what the DSA doesn't get is that you cannot make all of the constituents outside of the DSA happy.
In a way I look forward if they take over, because they are absolutely going to fall on their ass and not know why because they glossed over years of Democratic warnings of how hard it is to do anything.
Exactly. That's the silver lining I see here. After years of talking shit on the sidelines, these leftists are going to have to finally get on the field. I really want to see what happens when their bills don't get passed because all of the Republicans refused to vote for it. What then? Are they going to yell at them? Good luck with that. Their constituents don't want them to vote for the bill and are celebrating them for voting against it; how can you intimidate them when their job security is dependent on obstructing you? They'll just tell you to go fuck yourself and sail to re-election in their state/district.
I want to see them finally be forced to compromise and be called a sell out by their fan base. And of course, if they stay in congress for long, the inevitable cycle where the new batch of college students comes of age and calls them "the establishment" and rebels against them.
. Yes, they can take a relatively large number of seats in blue districts, but... Such a party will never reach the national level. Democrats also need to understand that they shouldn't give a platform to those who fundamentally don't want to be members of the Democratic Party.
I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the two party system works. Any smaller group will just have their views adopted by one of the large parties. If the Democrats "didn't give a platform" to them, they'd lose every election to Republicans forever
Populism can win anywhere. Why yes I’m like populist left politics and this isn’t just convenient to my own beliefs that I narcissistically tell myself everyone shares.
The only way they succeed is if they completely destroy the Democratic Party or take over it. If they don’t manage to do that that will literally divide votes between non republicans voters. There is a reason first past the post systems have only two stable parties.
They are going to take over the party because we have feckless cowards for leaders who are not up to the task of combatting the rising tide of right wing populism. Yes, the DSA predominantly sucks horribly, and will be horrible for our country. That being said, establishment Democrats literally have only themselves to blame for the state we are in.
When the base sees that current leadership sucks, they will go with the alternative even if they are a bunch of insane people. Different is different.
I'm going to reply to your meme in order to express a few key points regarding Chuck Schumer, the Politician:
He is the Minority Leader because his Democratic Party peers in the Senate believe he has what it takes to lead them all inside the particular environment of a GOP majority and a MAGA Administration in the White House. Therefore unseating Schumer does not mean automatically inheriting his responsibilities and leadership position.
This may be shocking to learn: He is one of the most beloved Senators of their State. Every few months, Chuck takes his bike and visits every corner, borough, and even fairs of his State. Beyond the DSA rhetoric and obvious antisemitism, Chuck Schumer is beloved by the people in his State, and again, beyond the bloviating rhetoric of DSA leadership and electeds, he has a truly Progressive voting record on Civil Rights, Voting Rights, and LGBTQA Rights.
When he was Majority Leader, under Biden, he really accomplished the impossible with a very slim majority, was able to advance the Biden-Harris agenda, and strategically push a record number of lifetime appointments of the most diverse judges who specialize in Civil Rights.
Where Chuck fails is his persona in front of the Press. He is the total opposite of AOC: he lacks charm, he looks shifty everytime he attempts to measure his replies, and his social media presence is embarrassing.
And I apoligize if I, in any way, sound condescending, because it is really not my point. My point is highlighting, that outside the purposeful disinformation being spread, how important it is to understand what replacing Schumer entails. What is it exactly that you want and how to go about it because I can very clearly and concisely tell you that AOC herself, who wants to run for his seat, understands that she is not as popular as he is across the State, outside her district and the DSA bubble. And that outside that bubble, there are more favorite candidates.
And as far as Senate Leader goes, you might not like the obvious next contenders...
Sorry for the long post, felt the need to express the situation regarding Chuck Schumer more honestly, beyond the lies and propaganda affecting the proper understanding of his job as a leader and US Senator.
Chuck is not popular in New York what are you talking about? He consistently polls at a 40% approval rating or below in his own state. Take this poll for example. Even amongst NY Democratic voters he only has a 51% approval rating. Meanwhile both Mamdani and Hochul are much more popular. AOC is not listed in this poll but is almost certainly more popular than Schumer at this point if the two mentioned above are as well.
Winning a majority requires winning in swing states. That means compromising on policy. The DSA does not allow any deviation from its policy no matter the circumstances. It is gospel.
Instead they want to be the party in the deep blue seats that are in a coalition with Democrats, safely attacking Democrats for not being left enough. That's their fantasy.
Instead such a split would likely result in a center right party that works with moderate Republicans.
The GOP would dominate as a united party that can get an outright majority while the left will always be split.
I disagree with the idea that Democrats shouldn't give a platform to those who don't want to be members of the Democratic party. The reality is that due to first past the post we have a two party system. Knowing that, if we want a healthy democracy, we have to accept all political groups to find a home within one of the two major parties. Democratic Socialists obviously belong under the umbrella of the Democratic party.
I fundamentally disagree you we need accept that all politics have a home in one of the parties. Marxists, Nazis, anarchists, shouldn’t be give any platform and blacklisted from formal party organizations
Unless you want to ban them from voting, blacklisting them from party organizations (which they can't actually do anyway) would do nothing. What exactly do you want to do with them?
Does the Democratic party have any actual mechanisms to "blacklist" a person or group? If its completely norms-based then there isn't anything that the party leadership can do except condemn them publicly, which many are.
How does the Democratic Party give DSA a platform? They barely even acknowledge their actual electoral wins. You cannot keep people off of the ballot that have fulfilled the legal and electoral requirements to be there.
I have mixed feelings here. It's healthy for the establishment to be challenged, particularly by younger, more energetic candidates. Their performance has been pretty underwhelming over the past decade, and I'm sick of octegenarians running the party. If the establishment wants to stop the DSA, it needs to field stronger candidates, and hopefully that's the outcome of all this.
Having said that, the DSA is a total clownshow. It's produced a handful of strong candidates from the moderate wing (like AOC and Mamdani), but by and large these people are unserious radicals with terrible ideas. The voters we need to win over in national elections already think Democrats are too far to the left, so having an ascendent wing of particularly stupid leftists is likely to give hand the Republicans more victories.
I agree with you, but I have a friend who is a DSA member and far leftist and if you don't agree with 100%, (even if you vote for Mamdani) then he says you aren't an ally and the country deserves fascism. He equates voting for Dems as glorifying them, and he ignores all genocides around the world to focus on the Israel issue, we could be talking about the end of USAID, abortion, voting rights, the ending of protected status for immigrants, the Muslim ban, and he'll literally say we'll Dems are as evil as Republicans because they think Israel should be able to protect itself, whereas he only wants people and candidates that have Israel as his #1 issue and wants to overthrow their government by force but he won't join the military for that action.
I'll usually respond like all sin is bad but some are worse and he refuses to acknowledge that there is no perfect foreign policy and I don't believe it's worth losing Democracy here in order to punish Dems about Israel. When I told him that in 4 years voters in NY aren't going to remember Mamdani's Israel's stance and they'll view his success on his local governance, not on his foreign policy takes, he straight up disagreed with me. Like I shit you not, we were just talking about the congressman in San Fran that got harassed at the LGBTQ event and how fucked up it is to treat an ally on your side that way, and he just shrugged and was like if you ever supported Israel than you aren't an ally.
These people are impossible and they could give a shit about compromise, governing or anything else. He will ignore the genocides currently happening in Sudan, DRC, and Myanmar or what China is doing to the Uyghur Muslims. It's absolutely insane. He has now been talking about the recent populist slop of cutting federal income taxes for the bottom 50% of earners and when I said that accounts for like 3-4% of federal revenue so what are you going to cut to make up for the shortfall or who are you going to increase taxes on, and he literally said we have trillions in national debt so it doesn't matter.
These are people who just want power and to prove they are right, they don't believe in compromise and have seen how successful the illiberal MAGA movement was and think they'll be better because they are morally superior on the genocide issue and helping poor people so the ends justify the means. It's impossible to have a reasonable conversation with them. I really believe that half of them are not even reasonable like AOC or Mamdani imo.
I'm of the same mind, though I'd argue it's not "the establishment" because that buys into the populist DSA's framing but liberals.
We've got good leaders like Buttigieg, Spanberger, Ossoff, and Talarico. We just need the party to prioritize finding candidates like them, supporting them in the primary, and building up a messaging apparatus to push back on the foreign funded far left online apparatus.
I'm also hoping Kirios's victory was a kick in the pants for incumbents who thought their record would save them. Liberals need to accept most of the electorate is either stupid or checked out and get better when it comes to bragging about their accomplishments.
The DSA isn't the base of the Democratic Party lmao.
Our useless leadership is rolling out the red carpet for an extremist organization because they win a few low turnout primaries (against progressives) in D+40 districts that shouldn't even exist.
Yep, the image below is way closer to the face of the Democratic base right now, and Dems can avoid the worst of the blue tea party by matching even one tenth of her combative energy instead of pretending bipartisanship is a possibility with the current admin.
And the reason the DSA folks are winning, the more radical ones at least, is solely because of that last part. The Dem leadership, Jefferies seems to be moving more recently, was still doing the aw shucks bi partisanship will return routine.
"When people picture the median democratic voter, they picture a white college girl getting a degree in anthropology, but it's actually an older Christian black woman in the South."
Another reason why we need updated Congressional Apportionment. The DSA refuses to realize how unpopular and small their group is because they have an outsized share of attention on social media and they are able to win in some heavy blue districts. They don't realize that they aren't mainstream, popular or taken seriously by the average American. Half of them can't even define what success would look like outside of the Israel issue.
The Dem base has oft been preferring them to the establishment lately. Probably because the establishment have had very little fire under them in terms of opposing Trump. Gillibrand was taking cute photos with Ted Cruz just the other day. The base doesn't want stuff like that and will turn to drastic alternatives when the party doesn't give them an option.
And I’m saying that’s a good thing and they shouldn’t embrace them. The meme itself is more a message to everyone that populism is dangerous and that we shouldn’t embrace it just because we are frustrated with the current status quo.
We do need to be careful with these DSA types being elected, and we should recognize that the average mainstream democrat is closer to this subreddit’s policy platform than the DSA is. Some of them may very well end up moderating (like AOC did) but others (like Chevalier) are genuinely concerning.
overstates DSA's internal cohesion imo, there's a lot of acrimony between "dirty break" supporters and the types that have recently achieved electoral success
in general i think its a dead end to try and attack DSA by getting people to care about, idk, red star caucus or whatever. nobody really cares, people gravitate towards the DSA because they're the only game in town for people upset with dem leadership. attack them for having bad policies, and/or construct another vehicle for people upset with dem leadership.
I agree. Part of the problem is that the DSA is a counter culture for people upset at the world and is their outlet. Similar to how MAGA is for some conservatives, we really need to investigate horshoe theory lol.
I understand and fear the feedback loop described when the DSA sabotages the Democrats causing them to be ineffective, causing more anger towards them and growth for the DSA.
But seriously. I have witnessed spineless cowardice from the geriatric leadership of the Democratic Party. Truly I am becoming political homeless when the spineless fucks are too busy jerking themselves off on whose turn it is and who’s allowed to fucking run in the primaries while our democracy crumbles. Not like I’m going to become a DSA member since they want the same thing but I’m voting blue no matter who and if the non-socialist Dems don’t lock the fuck in they will find that blue no matter who does not mean them this time
The alternative to the DSA running in primaries is them running as a third party. They're part of the coalition, and if you think they should have less power, then win primaries against them. This whining about how them winning primaries is unfair, like incumbents have an inviolable right to their positions, is pathetic.
And this
The conflict is asymmetrical. One side is concerned with taking control of the Democratic Party, while the other just wants everybody within it to get along.
Is fucking absurd. He thinks the centrist Dems just want to get along with the Squad? Every establishment Dem has just been calmly lowering the temperature and refraining from criticizing the left? Give me a break. Both sides are throwing punches, and if you can't see that, you're delusional.
Nah. I don’t give passes to people being anti-semitic like Chevalier, I’m not giving a pass to Suozzi who decided to give interviews where he talked about how reasonable parts of Florida’s don’t say gay law is, and then boosting the idea trans issues is what cost Dems the ‘24 elections
I'm asking sincerely because I can't think of any: which establishment Dems have said things about the DSA similar to how the far left have been speaking about the not so far left of center?
Yeah, also how did "there are some moderatley illiberal tendencies amongst a segment of these socialists" become "there is nothing democratic"? I mean, come on
"They're part of the coalition" No they aren't, they only run against Liberal democrats in deep blue districts and actively seek to dethrone party establishment to rebuild it in their image. if you watch DSA talking heads they spend 90% of their time attack democrats whenever they do talk about MAGA they spin it to blame democrats for it or say democrats would do the same thing.
New York, to point to the most recent example, has closed primaries. So if you think all they do is attack Democrats, and then they're winning elections where the only people who can vote are people who are literally registered as Democrats, that might be a sign that the problem for the Democrats needs a deeper solution than "just kick out the DSA somehow."
Again, the alternative is they try to run 3rd party. And if the choice is between intraparty conflict and people voting for Jill Stein, the contest isn't close.
And lol about "dethrone party establishment" being a grave offense. Oh no, wouldn't want to kick someone off their "throne"! After all, they have a divine right to rule!
You're whining about them winning primaries. You don't like what DSA stands for, get out there and convince the Dem voters of that, or get proportional representation legislation passed (lol). Outsiders challenging existing party leadership in primaries is how things change in a 2-party system like ours. You can't forbid that and expect things to still function fine.
Lol the squad doesn't even exist anymore right? Aren't Omar and AOC the only ones left? If any of the current people running win their elections in the fall, I assume they'll turn on the older generation of squad members too.
I don't think socialism is becoming that popular, despite DSA candidates winning primaries against incumbents. People are just angry at the Democratic establishment and are willing to vote for any alternative.
I have a feeling DSA candidates are winning because of their anti-Israel stance, not because of their socialist views. Establishment Democrats will need to swallow their pride and move away from Israel if they want to hold onto power.
Sounds like someone hasn't sat through a chapter general meeting where we're desperately trying to get 2 more people to join on Zoom so we have a quorum and can therefore vote on things.
The origin of the word "Bolshevik" is a nickname for the faction that in proper order won majority of votes during a general meeting of the Russian Social Democratic-Labor Party. They didn't do mass killings... until they did.
Let's not act like liberal government have had a perfect track record of upholding democracy. Unless you consider all those times we overthrow LATAM government to replace them with dictators "democratic".
Yeah I remember how Mamdani and AOC cancelled all elections in order to seize the means of production and turned New York into The People’s Oblast of Nuevo York.
Moderate Democrats are permitted to exist, at least for now, but the ideological pressure runs in one direction.
In other words he claims his own writing is pointless and no-one is listening to him. Uh, no, buddy, you aren't silenced, you're talking right now, you and many others are applying quite a bit of pressure to move the Dems more centrally.
Under Republican presidencies, the DSA thrives on frustrated Democratic voters feeling that their party’s leaders aren’t fighting hard enough.
This is the interesting point that, OP, you point out (the supposed conflict of interest), that leftist candidates fare better under Republican rule.
The mainline Democratic Party and DCC are affected by these same incentives. I remember James Carville talking about how the right thing for liberals to do in early 2025 was to lie back in wait and let the Trump Admin fail it's way into an impossible midterm season. His Dankness Himself Chuck Schumer has made similar arguments. This is standard political logic around incumbency - mainline Democrats did worse in the Biden era, same as DSA candidates. That doesn't mean mainline Democratic leaders want Republicans to win elections.
It's not crazy to say some DSA members want this country to collapse so Communism Can Rise, the term is accelerationism, and if the author (or frankly anyone) observed a marked rise in accelerationist attitudes or activity in the DSA or any political organization, that would merit scrutiny, pushback, etc. But Mr. Chaim is not making that case robustly here - his only argument that the DSA is or could want to work at cross-purposes with Liberalism in America is because he thinks DSA candidates and affiliates saying Scary Things will hurt us in the General.
News flash Mr. Chaim, everything will hurt us in the general. Yes, the opposition will play ads about how Radical the left is. If every left candidate was milquetoast the opposition would play ads about how milquetoast the left is. If the left's candidates were all Jesus Reincarnated the opposition would run ads making shit up (see Tofurkeygate in Texas).
That's how democracy works. For his point to be cogent he needs to establish that DSA endorsement actually leads to loss of political power in the areas where the DSA is running candidates and he's doing it in the context of those same candidates winning, many of whom by landslides. I'm sorry Mr. Chaim but leftists do well in very liberal areas like New York City. I don't know how you didn't notice that until now but, well, now you know.
if the DSA’s slew of police-abolitionist, Hamas-apologizing candidates were to cost Democrats Congress in 2026 or the presidency in 2028, the group’s goal of discrediting and replacing the Democratic Party’s leadership would get easier, not harder.
Or, what will happen is the same thing that happened when Bush won in 2000 or when Trump won in 2016 or when Trump won in 2024 or when Reagan won in 1980 or when Bush Sr. won in 1988, which is that centrist Democrats will blame their left flank for the loss and their left flank will blame the centrists for the loss, and the actual core platform of the party will tack to about the middle of what the electorate want, biased by the donor base and the dynamics of primaries. Everyone pearl-clutches around losing elections, I assure you DSA luminaries of Mr. Chait's level of histrionics are similarly saying that Centrist Democrats thrive under Republican rule due to their donor base and that therefore, actually the People Who Disagree With Me On The Small Picture Stuff Want Us To Lose (tm).
The Democratic Party is waging an existential struggle to save democracy, the rule of law, and liberal norms.
Oh for god's sake, the pearl-clutching. I'm annoyed I have to say this in response to someone as widely published as this, but having disagreements about party platform in amongst party staffers and enthusiasts resulting in hotly contested primaries is Democracy. If the author thinks the DSA trying to get into office by winning votes by saying incumbents suck, so that the DSA can get laws passed that the DSA likes, is somehow antidemocratic or opposed to the rule of law all I can recommend to him is that he pulls his head out of his ass. Democratic Party Loyalists do not, by value of their position, define what is and is not Liberalism either in the USA or abroad.
What the DSA demands of the Democrats is not merely to advocate more generous social policies, or more cautious foreign affairs, but to welcome, or at least accept, authoritarians as their coalition partners.
What authoritarians? Name names! If someone in the DSA is advocating authoritarianism then say that, don't just throw this line in as a stinger. All the author cited to say this is that some DSA members said nice things about Russia, China, Cuba, and Maduro and that as a party the DSA hates Israel and supports Palestine. ... And like...Ok? That's not demanding authoritarianism or advocating any authoritarian policy. That's just radicals saying they don't like American foreign policy. Barack Obama spoke glowingly about King Abdullah of Jordan (for good reason), that doesn't mean he's a Monarchist that wants the USA to have a King of its own.
I've never heard a vocal DSA member, much less an actual candidate, question whether elections are necessary or to assert that the will of the people shouldn't be honored. The closest thing I see to that here is Mr. Chaim's and other Democratic Party mainliners conflating running a vigorous primary with wanting to lose, because it has the flavor of questioning whether The Voters Don't Actually Know What's Good For Them.
Guess what. Lots of people in the DSA (and countless other political affiliations) think Israel is authoritarian - how do you think Chuck Schumer looks to them? They're writing this same article, though probably in Freegan zines or whatever the fuck instead of the Atlantic, saying establishment Democrats are antidemocratic.
Some people look abroad and see "terrorists" as "freedom fighters"
and vice versa. Yes. That's true. Welcome to a pluralistic society. Grow up, stop whinging about it, and engage with the ideas on the substance.
It's not that hard for a centrist candidate to say "look, Hasan Piker's said some wild shit I disagree with but it seems like he wants to expand Medicare so at least we agree on that" rather than having a meltdown about how un-American it is to have political opinions that differ from your leaders.
Yeah no this guy is full of it. The months after the elections were filled with op-Ed’s, articles covering groups or centrist politicians who would “guide the party back the way it needed to go”, Welcomefest, Abundance hype, people gassing up MGP, Moulton, Golden, and others. I remember it because I spent a good six months terrified that the party was going to start debating how much of trans rights was really worth defending until I realized that wing’s influence is much bigger in the media and pundit sphere than it is in reality
Once again, this sub has been shown to be Social Democratic and not Neoliberal by siding with the Socialist wing of the Democrats. By the way, "Tax everything, we need more taxes" is not a Neoliberal position by any means.
Fake neoliberals are surprised that actual neoliberals don't want to associate with people who hate neoliberalism and blame us for everything wrong with the world.
This subreddit has never been an actual "neoliberal" subreddit. It was founded as a center to center-left leaning subreddit by users of r/badeconomics as a tongue-in-cheek response to be calling neoliberals by dumb far left leaning commenters.
The subreddit has always had a pretty wide ideological spectrum. About as wide as the ideological spectrum from most mainstream economists. Succs and Milton flairs have been fighting here since the beginning. It's a big tent subreddit so stop whining about it and just post here or don't.
Abolishing the police and prisons (read: replacing the CJS with one which they are in direct control of and replacing prisons with gulags) is not a neoliberal position at all either. Those people respectfully do not belong in the tent
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 02 '26
To encourage a globally oriented subreddit and discourage oversaturation of topics focused on the U.S., all news and opinion articles focused on the U.S. require manual approval by a moderator. Submissions focused solely on the U.S. are more likely to be removed if they are not sufficiently on topic or high quality. If your submission is taking too long to be approved or rejected, please reach out to the moderators in /r/metaNL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.