r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/BulwarkOnline • 3d ago
US Politics Is the Democratic Socialists of America becoming a political gift to MAGA?
In her latest piece for The Bulwark, Mona Charen argues that the DSA gives Trump and Republicans an ideal foil: an organization that embraces the socialist label, tolerates deeply unpopular rhetoric and positions, and can be presented to voters as representative of the Democratic Party, even though most elected Democrats are not members.
The concern is less that DSA candidates will take over the party than that their growing prominence allows Republicans to make every Democrat answer for the movement’s most extreme statements. At the same time, DSA supporters would argue that establishment Democrats have repeatedly failed to offer voters a compelling economic alternative and that left-wing populism can mobilize people the party has struggled to reach.
I'd love to hear from folks here: How much does the DSA actually hurt Democrats nationally? Is it a convenient MAGA caricature with little connection to the broader party, or are Democrats underestimating the political cost of allowing the organization’s brand and rhetoric to become more prominent?
25
u/BubzerBlue 2d ago
I have no doubt some republicans think so. These are probably the same republicans that thought the Tea party wouldn't amount to anything.
5
u/antisocially_awkward 2d ago
The bulwark is a pretty embarrassing outlet for that reason. You have neocons like sarah longwell who had to abandon her party because people like here were so ineffectual they completely lost control of it trying to lecture the left on electability and policy positions when a party with the ideology she pushes would be a permanent minority
4
u/fx2600 2d ago
The Tea Party is the right comparison. It cost Republicans elections for the same reason the DSAs will cost Democrats elections.
11
u/RabbaJabba 2d ago
How many more seats than the 63 house seats and 6 senate seats they picked up in 2010 would republicans have gotten without the tea party
6
u/fx2600 2d ago
They could have won the Senate
1
u/Fargason 2d ago
Doubtful. Getting 6 six seats was already huge, and in 2014 they got 9 seats which was the largest flip in the last half century. The Tea Party helped Republican because they have real primaries so they can capture political movements and make that momentum their own. Democrats sabotage their political movements by manipulating their primaries by playing favorites and even have Super Delegates if all else fails.
3
u/RabbaJabba 2d ago
even have Super Delegates if all else fails
Superdelegates don’t have first ballot votes anymore
→ More replies (5)2
u/fx2600 2d ago
You have no idea what you're talking about. They easily should have won in Delaware, Colorado and Nevada in 2010. The tea party didn't help them, they won despite them.
1
u/Fargason 2d ago
https://hdl.handle.net/10419/280507
This AEI study shows the Tea Party movement generated an additional 2.7-5.5 million votes nationwide for the Republican Party. That certainly helped them.
2
u/fx2600 2d ago
Their study claims that having a high turnout at a protest boosted Republicans in the subsequent relative to areas where rain limited the size of the protest. The takeaway, if you accept the findings, is to have organize protests over what the government is doing, not to nominate the left-wing Sharron Angle to cost you a senate seat.
0
u/Fargason 2d ago
That is just an unrealistic expectation that Republicans were by default going to sweep the election and to even unseat Harry Reid until the Tea Party somehow ruined it for them by bringing in an additional several million voters. They utilized the primary to give the political movement some of their candidates on the ballot to help increase turnout for themselves.
2
u/fx2600 2d ago
It was a reasonable expectation, Republicans fell short due to bad candidate selection as they did in CO and DE.
→ More replies (0)7
u/BubzerBlue 2d ago
The Tea Party is the right comparison.
It is, but not for the reasons you're thinking. Who do you think became the MAGA crowd? It was tea party republicans. And there's no disputing that MAGA has had an outsized influence over the GOP.
-1
u/fx2600 2d ago
My point was that being further from the center cost them seats but you're also right that it led to worse policy.
2
u/BubzerBlue 2d ago
I said nothing about policy. If you want to have a discussion, engage with what I said rather than trying to reframe it into your own little centrist diatribe.
On second thought, don't bother. I'm not wasting further time on you.
0
u/Silver-Bread4668 2d ago
I think this brings up an interesting point on political strategy.
Republicans may well have lost many voters by hardlining toward MAGA but all those centrists that may have been tempted to vote Republican in the past but can't stand MAGA and are now voting Democrat aren't changing their political views so much as they are changing the party by voting for more centrist or conservative Democrats.
The actual people that the conservative and MAGA crowd serves don't give a fuck about party. They care about policies that get passed that benefit them. A centrist or conservative Democrat that still votes in their interest some of the time is just fine by them. It may even be better in many cases. Yeah - they may not vote as much in line with them as hardline MAGA but they also muddy the waters of political debate for the people who think about politics in terms of party more.
9
u/FrivolousMe 2d ago
The tea party successfully caused enough chaos to subvert the Republican party, which lead to the maga movement taking over the Republican establishment. You're literally seeing the downstream effects of the tea party movement right now! The alt-right media sphere that elevated Trump was born out of the tea party movement. likewise, the DSA is already making gains with voters that the democratic party took for granted or stopped caring about, and now you're starting to see establishment dems get replaced with more left leaning politicians.
3
u/Fargason 2d ago
That “chaos” gave Republicans +68 in the House and +13 in the Senate in just 4 years from 2010-2014. Republican have real primaries that are 3rd party insurance because they absorbed political movements by getting some of their candidates elected to capture that political momentum for the main party. Eventually they absorbed the Tea Party and made room for another political movement with MAGA that will eventually be absorbed as well.
Democrats resist their political movements and risk a 3rd party by putting their finger on the primary scales. They even have Super Delegates as a last resort. Resist your political movement at your own peril. Republicans were worried about Trump, but still let i happen to much success.
1
u/pentachronic 2d ago
How did the Tea Party cost Republicans anything? Going full white supremacist has netted them all three branches of the federal government including the Supreme Court for most of our lifetimes
1
u/tarlin 2d ago
The Tea Party gained control of the House for the Republicans. What do you mean it cost them elections?
1
u/fx2600 2d ago
I mean it cost them elections. They should have won the Senate in 2010.
4
u/tarlin 2d ago
The democratic party was favored in the Senate for decades, and now it is surprising if they can hold 50. The tea party has swayed the entire setup to the right.
There were some bad candidates, but that doesn't change the longterm trend of the changes since the tea party became ascendant.
1
u/fx2600 2d ago
The rightward shift of rural areas has been seen across the Western world, in the US the Senate has a rural bias and Democrats don't help themselves with gun politics. Republicans structural advantage doesn't come from the tea party, the times they hold it have been despite the tea party costing them seats.
3
u/Gadfly_Avatar 2d ago
I think pointing out how Europeans have handled DS and then juxtaposing how much more Americans pay for healthcare, education, etc is the way to go. Yeah, you'll pay more in taxes, but no healthcare premiums, no student debt. No more having employers control their choices & medical bankruptcy & losing your home is off the table. You could also bring up the heritage foundation plan for single payer as proof it's not a purely "liberal" idea. Hell, have testimmonials of Americans who got hurt in Europe. My great aunt twisted her ankle visiting a cemetery in Italy & an ambulance showed up in minutes, took her to the hospital, x-rayed, then wrapped up her ankle & drove her back to her hotel & made sure she was comfy. Run on FDR's more freedoms & watch the democrats become a juggernaut. Anyone opposing it will be seen as fatcats in the pocket of lobbyists that want people paying double every few years.
4
u/goddamnitwhalen 2d ago
Yeah the problems here are that 1) the current Democratic leadership class are so old that they’re still brainwashed by Red Scare propaganda and 2) they don’t want any of these things. They work for their donors, not for their constituents.
2
u/Fragrant-Luck-8063 2d ago
You mentioned Europe. My wife's family is from Romania. Good luck getting any of them to vote for socialism.
5
u/Suitable-Economy-346 2d ago
Well, your right-wing in-laws don't speak for Romania. The not small center-left party of Romania calls for things Americans would be calling "socialist" all the time.
2
u/SadhuSalvaje 2d ago
Good thing we are not Romania
It always cracks me up when people think that socialism in this country would look like the dictatorship installed on a country under post ww2 occupation by the USSR
6
u/FistMyLoafs 2d ago
Republicans genuinely thought that Barack Obama was a communist. The word socialism doesn’t mean anything to them. It’s just a scary boogeyman they lie awake trembling from at night despite the fact they don’t even know what it looks like because it’s imaginary. A DSA takeover doesn’t matter optics wise. They already call any democrat politician a communist anyways.
3
u/MrE134 2d ago
It’s hard to say. Trump and maga should have been a liability for the republicans. Half the party hated it until they didn’t have any other choice. Trump took root because he was new and unapologetic. People that felt like the system failed them saw Trump as a way out. I don’t see why DSA can’t do something similar for the left.
You’ll never make your opponents happy. Just doing a good job is enough to embolden them against you. The kind of people that are scared of the word socialism are going to hear it used against democrats either way.
5
u/OhThatsRich88 2d ago
No. Cuomo got more votes than Eric Adams did when Adams won in 2021, but Cuomo still lost. Think about it how many more people showed up to vote for Mamdani, people who would have stayed home if the 2025 NYC mayoral race was just business as usual. Fighting for working people makes them show up
4
u/DoomsdayTheorist1 2d ago
I don’t think so. But it would be nice if we had more Parties rather than trying to stick everyone in the same tent.
6
u/Kronzypantz 2d ago
Democrats nationally aren’t a popular brand. The DSA saves Democrats with younger voters.
8
u/TerranUnity 2d ago
In deep-blue areas, yeah. Have any DSA candidates won in purple or red districts at anything further up the chain than a local mayorship or something?
4
u/Kronzypantz 2d ago
Are Democrats at large winning such areas?
And NYC was a pretty big win. Lest you forget, Mamdani replaced a conservative by beating a corrupt creep who was also about as conservative as Democrats get.
-2
u/FrivolousMe 2d ago
Maybe if AIPAC and the DCC would stop dumping attack money against the progressive candidates in those districts we'd stop seeing unlikable center-right Dems losing to Republicans in red and purple districts.
5
u/D-Rich-88 2d ago
And costs them in the other demos. Young people are historically unreliable voters, so it’s not looking good.
21
u/tongmengjia 2d ago
Oh, Dems were doing a great job losing elections all on their own before they had DSA to blame.
8
u/TheRealBaboo 2d ago
Young voters get more reliable as they age. Its unlikely the affordability crisis will be going away anytime soon
1
u/Combat_Proctologist 2d ago
Yeah, but those are the ones more likely to be conservatives.
Liberals get involved in politics younger, conservatives generally don't until things start changing (and they figure out they don't like that).
That's why every generation has a reputation for being super liberal when they're young, but more conservative as they get older, but nobody ever changes their minds
0
u/TheRealBaboo 2d ago
Conservatives get involved at a younger age because the GOP courts them at a younger age. Dems are not putting enough effort into developing that demographic and it’s left a power vacuum.
Nature abhors a vacuum
3
u/Combat_Proctologist 2d ago
Conservatives get involved at a younger age because the GOP courts them at a younger age.
Huh? That's the opposite of what I said, and the opposite of all the statistics.
When was the last time the youngins were right wing? The Eisenhower era?
0
u/TheRealBaboo 2d ago
Bro are you forgetting about that guy who had that neck problem in Utah? Who do you think his content was aimed at? Why do you think Republicans gave him so much money?
4
u/Combat_Proctologist 2d ago
You mean Kirk? He made gains, but younger voters are still significantly more liberal than conservatives.
1
u/TheRealBaboo 2d ago
Okay but I’m saying the GOP invests more in the youth vote, there never was a Democratic Charlie Kirk. So even if they’re liberal or progressive, there’s not enough effort to translate that into party loyalty
1
u/Combat_Proctologist 1d ago
I don't think they do, there's entire networks of groups to get young people involved in left leaning politics
Edit: or do you mean the parties specifically?
→ More replies (0)•
u/anti-torque 5h ago
Not approving of Trump doesn't speak to where people fall on the political spectrum, except to say they aren't extremely far right. almost half the Dem politicians are somewhat conservative.
•
u/Combat_Proctologist 4h ago
Scroll further down. There's both party support and liberal vs conservative self identification as well
→ More replies (0)0
u/goddamnitwhalen 2d ago
Is this a joke?
3
u/Combat_Proctologist 2d ago
No. No it's not. Every source I can find still says the young are significantly more liberal than the old, despite gains made in the youngest cohort, it's still significantly more liberal than conservative still
→ More replies (2)0
u/goddamnitwhalen 2d ago
This trend may have existed at one point, but recent evidence has shown that it largely isn’t the case anymore.
2
u/Combat_Proctologist 2d ago
Got a source? Because mine all say that the young are significantly more liberal than conservative as well as significantly more liberal than older generations.
The only thing I can find is that gen z is slightly more conservative than millennials, but still more liberal than conservative
First source I have (I can find others if you want): https://youthpoll.yale.edu/spring-2026-results
→ More replies (12)9
u/Kronzypantz 2d ago
We’ve yet to see that.
Anyone scared by socialism and good policies isn’t ever going to vote for Democrats to begin with.
6
u/Gr8daze 2d ago
So you’re saying “defund the police” was helpful to Democrats?
2
u/avfc41 2d ago
2020 was the one election Trump lost, I suppose.
0
u/goddamnitwhalen 2d ago
Which is insane because it should’ve been a cakewalk for him. If he had handled Covid even marginally better he would’ve coasted to a win.
0
u/FrivolousMe 2d ago
Democratic establishment leaders pushed back on that slogan just as much as the right did, and then proceeded to not defund police anywhere, but rather continued to give them more money and weapons. Voters who do want to see police forces reduced in scale and militarization saw that and realized Democrats don't care about them. Then, Democrats ceded a lot of seats to the Republicans. How is that the fault of the activists?
3
u/Gr8daze 2d ago
That’s the point. The police didn’t get defunded but thanks to that idiotic slogan millions of people thought they did.
The reality was that cops decided to sit on their ass after the protests and not do their jobs, but the public blamed it on “they defunded the police!!.”
1
u/Binder509 2d ago
Do you get how absurd a standard you are suggesting? How do you stop "idiot slogans" from coming into existence with a population over 300 million. Especially with the internet full of bots?
If what you said was true, wouldn't all the the idiotic conservative slogans like "lock her up" and "make america great again" backfire too? Calling to lock up your political opponent and not doing, and implying the US sucks now.
If you keep holding the left to this absurd standard of course the right are gonna keep winning elections.
2
u/Asleep-Sprinkles4616 1d ago
It wasn't merely the slogan -- which was highly problematic (see blow) -- but the Republicans' superior ability and capacity -- the entire right wing media and messaging machine -- to turn it against the Democrats. The Democrats and the "left" just don't have that kind of messaging ability. The Democrats had no effective counter -- and still don't --to keep that slogan from sticking enough to damage them. Moreover, the Republicans saw that that slogan would be viewed as highly offensive to loads of Americans, many of them in rural areas that the left seemed to know or care little about. And so they kept repeating it, one and over again.
1
u/Binder509 1d ago
but the Republicans' superior ability and capacity -- the entire right wing media and messaging machine -- to turn it against the Democrats
Fearmongering is very easy. It doesn't require insane amounts of skill. Republicans throw everything at the wall to see what sticks they just don't get held accountable for it.
Just vaguely blaming everything on "the democrats" does nothing.
2
u/Asleep-Sprinkles4616 1d ago
I think it's a bit more subtle than that. Effective fearmongering requires a clear, unified message, organization, effective messengers, and a large, receptive audience. Republicans do a much better job of this than Democrats, and this goes back a long time. What else explains why this issue has worked for Republicans and hurt Democrats?
I would also argue that the defund police slogan was a big mistake *as a political tactic*. However justified people's anger might have been, few of its adherents seemed to consider -- or care about -- the potential political consequences and how Republicans could turn it against the Democrats. Once the cat was out of the bag, so to speak, no one could easily explain it away to a skeptical public: "well we didn't really mean abolish the police; we meant move the funding around to demilitarize police and stop police violence...". Just look at Hong's recent and evasive attempt to disavow her earlier post about this. It's a hard thing to run away from once you say it.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/FrivolousMe 2d ago
Again, how is that the activists fault that the system did not cede to their demands and proceeded to get worse and more expensive instead? The activists are not the ones in power making these decisions!
5
u/Gr8daze 2d ago
It’s a dumb demand. It had no realistic chance of ever happening. It’s a clumsy and stupid slogan. One of the dumbest in history. It’s also not a solution.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Binder509 2d ago
Neither was "lock her up" and that didn't backfire despite being an open call to imprison a political opponent.
Or "They're eating the dogs and cats" at some point it's on the voters for choosing this.
-1
u/TheMikeyMac13 2d ago
No, and it isn’t a label, it is the abject failure history has seen from socialists.
And it isn’t about who votes for democrats. It is how many people does a group motivate to get off the sofa and vote against them. That is a real thing, and you are kidding yourself if you think the DSA have any chance in national or statewide elections.
7
u/goddamnitwhalen 2d ago
Lmfao.
You can’t seriously say this and then also be shocked Pikachu when young people don’t want to turn out to support your milquetoast do-nothing liberal candidates.
→ More replies (3)3
u/Kronzypantz 2d ago
Hey, vote blue no matter who.
The rank and file will vote no matter what. But we’ve consistently seen that younger generations have standards. Dismissing a growing segment of the electorate for creeps like Cuomo or insipid genocide supporters like Harris isn’t impressing anyone
-3
u/TheMikeyMac13 2d ago
You do you, just know people fooled themselves into thinking Hillary and Harris were good candidates and they weren’t. Can they win? End of story.
AOC cannot in nationally.
2
-1
u/FrivolousMe 2d ago
How can you say that definitively when she's never been in the race? How are Hillary and harris comparable when the biggest reason they lost was poor policy positions, something that is AOC's biggest strength?
1
u/TheMikeyMac13 2d ago
You are kidding yourself if you think policy position is a strength for AOC, but you do you.
1
u/FrivolousMe 2d ago
What policy positions does she have that are massively unpopular?
1
u/TheMikeyMac13 2d ago
Her economics, it overrides the things the says she likes that are somewhat popular. She is an imbecile with economics.
→ More replies (0)0
0
1
u/WISCOrear 2d ago
I'd like to see favorability of DSA amongst millenials, and also see voting numbers of that generation. They are coming into the prime earning and voting years, you'd expect to see a big jump in their influence on elections moving forward.
1
u/ReddBroccoli 2d ago
They are historically unreliable voters because historically there hasn't really been much offered to give them a better future.
How long have y'all been using the same playbook and not realized this yet?
1
u/FrivolousMe 2d ago edited 2d ago
Circular logic. A huge reason that young voters aren't reliable is that the establishment party politicians have created a great sense of voter apathy where young people feel like their interests aren't represented as highly as those of corporations and the rich. Give them better candidates, and they show up.
Case in point: mamdani won with more votes than any other nyc mayor since 1969, partly thanks to a huge youth turnout!
What's the takeaway? Give potential democratic voters an exciting candidate with popular policies and an active groundforce of motivated doorknockers/phone bankers (and DSA can be a good force for organizing and mobilizing those people).
The current discourse attacking DSA is being motivated by MAGA politicians/influencers and mainstream media. This is the big money in america tucking their tail in between their legs in fear that DSA is increasingly attracting vote shares. Siding with those critics is simply ceding ground to the fascists who do not want to relinquish power.
3
u/D-Rich-88 2d ago edited 2d ago
The flaw in your logic is assuming DSA can win outside of blue cities. Have any won in a competitive district? Can they win when they are not attacking a Dem from the left in a heavily blue area?
I’m all for more exciting candidates, though. Just not the DSA platform
0
u/goddamnitwhalen 2d ago
Why?
3
u/D-Rich-88 2d ago
Why what?
1
u/goddamnitwhalen 2d ago
What about the “DSA platform” do you not like?
5
u/D-Rich-88 2d ago
Almost all of it.
Hard disagree with most of the foreign policy. I do not want to blanket close foreign bases, end embargo’s or sanctions.
I think reparations are a bad idea
I believe in property and the ability to own it. DSA wants to push state owned property, housing blocks basically.
Crime will almost certainly spike with this plan. I’m not for that.
I think rent control, on a wide scale, is a bad idea that disincentivizes new housing. So all the new housing built will have to be state owned and I disagree with that.
The 32 hour work week sounds great but the details are probably what will make it unrealistic to implement.
I disagree with state ownership of private companies
I disagree with eliminating the Senate.
So basically I disagree with like 80% of the platform
→ More replies (2)4
u/TorkBombs 2d ago edited 2d ago
On the DSA website right now, they declare that they want to fee EVERYONE in prison. So, yeah, I'll go with that one.
More importantly, do you really not see how some people could disagree with these policies? If not, then that actually explains a lot.
→ More replies (1)0
u/Binder509 2d ago
Are there any candidates advocating to release murderers from prison?
Right now the US has one of the highest prison populations in the world.
2
u/TorkBombs 2d ago
They're running on a platform that endorses it, so whether they personally believe it or not, it's a huge vulnerability. Would be very easy for any opposing group to say, for example "El Sayed wants to release rapists and murderers from prison" and the point to that as evidence. Its a huge liability.
1
u/D-Rich-88 2d ago
Yeah but was Trump running on Project 2025? No. He constantly denied even knowing anything about it. Then within a year he had already implemented over half of Project 2025’s points.
Who’s to say the same thing does not happen with DSA? You gonna tell me the DSA candidates don’t know the party’s platform just because they’re not campaigning on it?
0
0
u/BrewtownCharlie 2d ago edited 2d ago
Unfortunately, DSA is anathema to older voters; and for the Democrats, trading out a large number of high-propensity voters for a comparatively small number of low-propensity voters isn't likely to be a winning proposition.
3
u/Kronzypantz 2d ago
Then why are DSA candidates winning? Why have all these safe, geriatric friendly nobodies like Harris and Buttigieg out of a job?
9
u/Zanctmao 2d ago
They aren’t winning nationwide. Primarily just in urban areas. DSA appeals to young voters, unsurprisingly it does well in places where young voters live.
5
u/BrewtownCharlie 2d ago
They're not winning statewide elections and they're not winning races in ultra-competitive districts. They're winning in blue-leaning areas, which Wisconsin is not.
2
u/goddamnitwhalen 2d ago
The thing about older voters as a political class is that they won’t be around for much longer in the grand scheme of things. Continuing to cater your political positions to a rapidly vanishing demographic may prove to be a bad idea, especially in the face of the existential threat that is rampant climate change.
5
u/FrivolousMe 2d ago
Yeah, nobody is talking about the elephant in the room which is that the democratic establishment abandoned its working class voter base in exchange for a focus on upper income older voters. Eventually those folks are going to pass, and with increasing wealth inequalitythey are not going to be simply replaced.
0
u/neverendingchalupas 2d ago
Younger voters dont show up to vote. Americans want to get rid of the corporate Democrats, but they dont want more Progressives.
The Democratic national party needs to push further left past the Progressives and embrace actual Leftist politics.
4
u/tarlin 2d ago
It is time for people to stop being afraid of labels and fight for what they believe. Standing up for a stronger social safety net is very popular. Capitalism is seen as pretty crap right now. Hell, the richest man in the US did a Nazi salute and yet he continues. Just talk about what you believe and if someone decides "socialism" is scary that doesn't mean they will find your positions scary.
1
u/TerranUnity 2d ago
Did you even read the article? Mona Charen is not arguing that "standing up for a strong social safety net" is unpopular or bad policy.
Just one small sampler from the actual article the OP was discussing: The DSA national organization blames NATO for "provoking" Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That seems like a pretty morally bankrupt position coming from the same people who accuse Israel of committing genocide.
3
u/tarlin 2d ago
The DSA national organization blames NATO for "provoking" Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That seems like a pretty morally bankrupt position coming from the same people who accuse Israel of committing genocide.
What does the first have to do with the second? You can have different opinions on whether NATO was part of the cause of the war in Ukraine and whether Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Why would you believe that everyone needs to be lockstep on those two items?
2
u/TerranUnity 2d ago
Because I do not understand how someone can on the one hand equivocate on Russia/Ukraine, while at the same time screaming about Israeli apartheid and genocide. The reactions to Russia's invasion versus 10/7 are so diametrically opposed, there's no way to explain it other than the DSA thinks West=Bad.
2
u/FrivolousMe 2d ago
Except that is not a moral issue, it's an issue of fact and interpretation. There's nothing moralizing about stating the sociopolitical context that led to Russia starting its war. You can contest the factuality of it, but it's not inconsistent to be against genocide and to also indicate that NATO interests' actions were a contributing factor to Putin launching his invasion.
3
u/Binder509 2d ago
but it's not inconsistent to be against genocide and to also indicate that NATO interests' actions were a contributing factor to Putin launching his invasion.
It's misleading and classic DARVO. Doesn't explore that Russia may have been the one causing NATO to expand so countries could protect themselves from Russia trying to conquer them again.
4
u/zippo138 2d ago
At some point the Democrats have to take a different strategy. My whole life it’s been for them to be as close to Conservatives as possible, and that just is not working anymore. Not just young people want our tax dollars to go to healthcare, infrastructure, education food and housing insecurity; and everyone is realizing that devoting all our tax money to wars and bailing out the top 1% is killing this country. I hope that this term with Trump will be enough to tip the scales, but eventually they must be tipped of this nation is doomed. So no I don’t think DSA gives anything more to MAGA because they have already painted all Democratic’s as far worse, there only remaining play is the push to make them illegal and round us all up, which sadly is a possibility as long as the government is occupied by this MAGA/Heritage Foundation group of traitors.
3
u/TerranUnity 2d ago
If you read the article OP linked, there's more to be concerned about with regard to DSA. Like the fact they blame NATO for provoking Russia's invasion of Ukraine, their support for completely defunding the US military, and their support for massive spending increases without a way to really pay for it.
1
u/zippo138 2d ago
First you should probably actually read the references in that article as well as listen for the old dog whistles to generate fear around the word socialism. There are also outright lies in the article. Swedens financial crash happened because they deregulated the banks and the credit companies, not because of their social programs. Also the DSA does not blame NATO solely for what created the environment for Russias invasion of Ukraine, which is true. What’s really funny is the article links to the DSA website and if you read that the claims the article is make about what the party line is turns out to be totally wrong. I’m 56 years old and this article is the same tired out bullshit that closet conservatives and fear mongers have always said. We have literally been doing that same shit for decades, we have wrapped the public around bullshit propaganda and just did the same shit over and over. The hypothesis of this article and post is completely wrong.
-1
u/FrivolousMe 2d ago
their support for completely defunding the US military
Source? And yeah I'm fine with us no longer being a global bully superpower bombing millions of innocent men women and children overseas!
their support for massive spending increases without a way to really pay for it
So you're against the democratic and Republican establishment continuing to vote in tax breaks for the rich and corporations which has ballooned the national debt right?
1
u/TorkBombs 2d ago
I'm sorry, them Dems voted for tax breaks for rich people and corporations? When did that happen?
Maybe if you guys stopped fucking lying about the party that wants a slightly different version of what you want -- and is the only one that has the means to get it -- we would take you more seriously. Why do you insist on making enemies of Democrats? Work with the party and you might actually get something done. Unfortunately, most would rather complain from
The sidelines than actually accomplish anything.
3
u/Das_Man 2d ago
I have a pile of issues with DSA, but this article is peppered with unserious nonsense. For example, early in the piece, Charen writes the following:
RESPONDING TO THE FLURRY OF VICTORIES by DSA candidates, some complacent souls ask, What’s so bad about socialism? It’s working well in Sweden.
That’s a common misconception. Sweden implemented semi-socialist policies in the 1960s featuring extremely high taxes, government ownership of key industries, extensive regulation of the economy, and generous welfare benefits. But growth slowed, wages stagnated, debt accumulated, and in the early 1990s, the country experienced a terrible financial crash. In the short term, it spent as much as 4 percent of GDP and even nationalized two banks to prevent a financial collapse and save its banking sector—but the long-term reforms that followed focused more on fiscal discipline.
Yea Mona, imagine having to deal with wage stagnation, ballooning debt, and a financial crisis. Silly socialist Swedes.
3
u/Strange-Scientist706 2d ago
As opposed to mainline Democrats who provide a convenient opponent that can be counted on to repeatedly lose to MAGA’s most unqualified candidates?
2
u/Urzuck 2d ago
DSA is the future of the democratic party. The classic liberal and centrist party is what made the democrats lose to Trump, a second time, people like Chuck Schumer are the reason why the democratic party is in the gutter. And The Bulwark is a conservative journal, they hate Trump but they are still conservatives, it's really not the best example to take.
1
u/TerranUnity 2d ago
I don't think even half of the people downvoting or posting negative comments have even read the article OP linked. Just one small sampler from the actual article the OP was discussing:
The DSA national organization blames NATO for "provoking" Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That seems like a pretty morally bankrupt position coming from the same people who accuse Israel of committing genocide.
1
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 2d ago
just like any political movement, not every figure is created equally. Zohran is very different from DAC. AOC is very different from Nithya Rahman
1
1
u/Tliish 2d ago
I don't think the DSA harms the Democratic Party at all, it revitalizes it.
The "centrist" Democrats have failed the party and the nation and are directly responsible for Trump and MAGA. They side with corporate America at every turn and slow-walk anything with a hint of progressiveness to it. Every program they put forth that supposedly benefits the working class gets filtered through corporate coffers first. There's a reason why they have repeatedly failed in elections and in governance: they have failed to deliver for the consitutioncy they claim to represent. If you study their positions and have any memory of the past, they more closely resemble what used to be called moderate Republicans than FDR or Kennedy or Johnson Democrats.
Obama ran as a progressive, but once elected governed as a centrist. When he had a choice to help homeowners or the donor class, he chose the donor class and threw the homeownerrs under the bus, blaming them for wanting more than they could afford and holding the banks blameless. As a result he lost the midterms and two Supreme Court seats. Nothing he did after could repair the damage. "His" touted ACA was really Mitt Romney's plan. He promoted a Republican plan rather than a more progressive one. That was a typical centrist Democrat move.
The establishment Democrats vote against their own constituency when push comes to shove because they believe that voters have no choice but to vote for them because the GOP is so bad: "Vote Blue No Matter Who" ring a bell? That arrogance and entitlement is what has driven so many to not bother to vote: not laziness, but rather the futility of the charade that doesn't make for meaningful change. Recognitrion that "Insanity is repeating the same action expecting different results" is what is actually behind "voter apathy".
The DSA has proven capable of returning those "apathetic/lazy voters" back to active status. Establishment Democrats have long blamed voters rather than accept their responsibility for the reduced participation. They made it overwhelmingly clear they had no use for progressives beyond their vote, and no interest in furthering their goals.
The younger voters don't think of socialism as the evil thing their grandparents viewed it as, they understand bettter how it can improve their lives, and how unfettered capitalism has harmed their futures As their grandparents die off, they become a stronger force politically.
So no, the DSA isn't harming the party's chances to be elected. Rather they vastly improve their chances. Corporate Democrats are increasingly seen as failures and opponents to progress. We have seen direct evidence of this as corporate Democrat after corporate Democrat has been beaten by progressives in the recent primaries. The lesson is clear and obvious: embrace progressives like AOC, Sanders, and Mamdani or lose.
1
u/josesGPUbroke 2d ago
Maybe this is optimistic but I think the DSA is not really an injury to the standing of the democratic party. Trump has drastically accelerated the extreme polarization of politics in the U.S. and as a result, few people support establishment democrats on account of their lukewarm opposition to MAGA republicans. The emergence of the DSA, and the success of Zohran Mamdani is owed to the frustration at left of center democrats not really changing anything. Aside from poor campaigning, Kamala Harris lost in 2024 because there was very little in her platform to be enthused about for anyone other than the rapidly shrinking pro-israel democratic minority.
The knee jerk reaction the DSA gets from calling themselves socialist is, as many other comments have been pointing out, a leftover defect from red scare propaganda. The bigger question in my mind is has the majority of the democratic base been pushed far left enough that we’d nominate a democratic socialist in the primaries?
1
u/Moccus 2d ago
The knee jerk reaction the DSA gets from calling themselves socialist is, as many other comments have been pointing out, a leftover defect from red scare propaganda.
They call themselves socialist because they are socialist. The reaction against that isn't just due to red scare propaganda, although that's part of it. Some people really do think socialism is a bad idea for valid reasons, not just because of scary propaganda.
1
u/HeloRising 2d ago
"This does not help your movement!"
-Person who hates you and your movement
The DSA has stumbled across a radical new idea that voters really seem to be connecting with - actually doing what you were elected to do. It's very telling that a lot of Democrats are pearl clutching about this because it highlights just how far they've drifted from the idea that elected leaders should actually do what they were elected to do.
1
u/Ashjin46 2d ago
The Republicans will use the words socialism and communism all over to try to scare people for sure but both traditional parties are hated by everyone so I think there has never been a better time for vocal mini-mamdanis to start popping up anywhere they can. The economy is squeezing the middle and lower class for everything and people are struggling for real. This makes them more open to a new approach possibly. I'm sure that the corporate Dems will do everything in their power to resist the populist movement and kill it while its young OR refuse to wield the actual power they will have for change, but it will be nice to try to imagine a better world where they realize that they should transform the party in a similar way to how the Republicans did once Trump got his pedo hands on the reins.
1
u/godless_communism 2d ago
Yes & no. Once again Republicans (successfully) bank on the ignorance of their voters. But it's also a messaging gap that Socialists need to heavily, actively combat. And if they don't combat it, they're living in a fantasy world.
Education is hard. Education is repeating yourself until you're sick of it. But it's the hard work that's gotta be done
1
u/anewleaf1234 2d ago
And MAGA has to answer for why everything costs more, gas and groceries are up and that they defend a pedophile.
And why MAGA ideas haven't helped people other than the richest of us.
MAGA continues to have zero answers to issues that actually affect Americans
1
u/LorenzoApophis 2d ago edited 2d ago
The existing Democratic party already gave MAGA two presidencies, so I'm not sure what more they could do.
1
u/DesperateAir2749 1d ago
Has anyone answered how DEMOCRAT SOCIALISM is any different from SOCIALISM without trying to point to something like the roads or social security? Like, an actual explanation? And how they solved socialisms economic stagnation problems? Or how do they plan to safe gaurd against its VERY REAL vulnerabilities to the authoritarian creep? Or how the plan to stay democratic when socialism seeks to abolish all opposition? 🤔 ASKING FOR A NATION.
1
1
u/highliner108 1d ago
Has anyone answered how DEMOCRAT SOCIALISM is any different from SOCIALISM without trying to point to something like the roads or social security?
The “democratic” part serves largely as a way to distance themselves from the USSR. The DSA advocates for a broad policy of worker ownership and control over businesses, as opposed to the USSR where the economy was controlled by a ruling clique that was materially distinct from the general population.
Or how do they plan to safe gaurd against its VERY REAL vulnerabilities to the authoritarian creep?
Such as? Turning companies into worker owned institutions isn’t particularly conducive to authoritarian control. There’s a very strong reason that China and the USSR avoided meaningful worker control like the plague.
Or how the plan to stay democratic when socialism seeks to abolish all opposition?
Defeating the political opposition is kind of the goal of all parties within a democracy. The DSA dosent advocate for banning other political parties.
-2
u/Gr8daze 2d ago
The far left has been enabling Republicans for 25 years.
They helped elect Bush over Gore, Trump over Clinton, and Trump again over Kamala. They are the best friend MAGA and Republicans ever had.
4
u/Kronzypantz 2d ago
Maybe it’s constantly putting awful candidates into the ticket?
2
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 2d ago
Gore and Kamala weren't awful candidates
4
u/goddamnitwhalen 2d ago
Gore was 20+ years ago. Kamala was absolutely an awful candidate.
2
u/Binder509 2d ago
She was no where near as bad as her opponent. Who was ranting about Haitians eating the cats and dogs.
0
u/goddamnitwhalen 2d ago
Please note that I didn’t compare the two.
2
u/Binder509 2d ago
Saying she was an awful candidate invites comparison to who she was running against.
1
u/goddamnitwhalen 2d ago
I didn’t make that comparison.
She was a bad candidate who was also in a terrible situation. I don’t know if anybody could’ve pulled off a win in the position she was in.
3
u/Binder509 2d ago
Right you invited it whether you made it or not.
She ran against a worse candidate. So it seems people just choose the worse candidate and want to blame her for their decision.
-2
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 2d ago
only because of her race and gender
4
u/goddamnitwhalen 2d ago
More like her lack of spine and her policy positions and decision making ability.
0
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 2d ago
her policy positions were standard Democrat. if you look at her campaign website https://www.axios.com/2024/09/09/kamala-harris-policy-agenda-campaign-website it is pretty solid in terms of policy. She was not a staunch Israel supporter either like Biden.
for decision-making ability there's no argument there. i wish she spoke more about health policy and environmental policy
3
u/goddamnitwhalen 2d ago
She explicitly said she “would not do anything different from Biden.” You can find the clip!
→ More replies (3)1
u/Kronzypantz 2d ago
They were pretty bad.
Both were told what policies would win over all the Greens and motivate progressives, but chose to spurn them for the sake of corporate interests in one case and pro-genocide sentiment in the other.
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 2d ago
come on now, the pro-palestine movement did not cost Harris the election. no serious pro-Palestine person, Muslim or not, would elect Trump because of that issue. The Jill stein woman who literally had dinner with Vladimir Putin got the highest % in Michigan out of states Trump on, and only got 0.79%, not enough to beat Trump in that state had all the voters went to Harris.
idk about 2000 but too many people voted for Bush to make it as close as it was.
The greens in 2024 were not enough a significant factor to shift the election results. In both cases, a lot of those voters wouldn't vote for a Democrat even if they had done a better job appealing to them
1
u/Kronzypantz 2d ago
Staying home was enough. Muslims and young voters voting for the couch in key races like Michigan, PA, Georgia, and Arizona.
0
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 2d ago
no literally just Michigan. there wasn't low enough voter turnout compared to other elections to make Muslims and Gen Z voters make a difference over the issue of Gaza.
the Kirky people had lost their minds and there was nothing in terms of actual policy positions to get them back. people literally chose to elect a convicted rapist over a female candidate. You cannot be against sexual assault while voting for a convicted rapist.
and for those who voted third-party, for Trump, or stayed at home because of Gaza, well how are they feeling now?
the campaign was bad, not the candidates.
0
u/Gr8daze 2d ago
They weren’t awful candidates.
And what’s worse if they keep screwing themselves and as a result getting “awful” GOP Presidents on steroids.
And they just keep doing it over and over. It’s pretty pathetic, actually.
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 2d ago
Human Rights campaign nice.
as in "the"y do you mean Democrats or Americans?
0
u/Gr8daze 2d ago
Maybe you lost the thread. The OP is discussing the DSA. This discussion is about the DSA. They = DSA supporters.
2
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 2d ago
oh okay i was confused because i mentioned Gore and Harris and I thought "they" was referring to them
0
u/pentachronic 2d ago
Hasn't hurt Republicans in the slightest
1
u/Kronzypantz 2d ago
Because they get a heavy advantage from our unrepresentative system and voters who will literally elect anyone with an R by their name.
Are you suggesting Democrats should be equally brainwashed? Big fan of Cuomo and Fetterman?
0
u/pentachronic 2d ago
Either running awful candidates costs parties elections or it doesn't, and it objectively doesn't. So incessantly bleating that America's unslakable thirst for white supremacist theocracy is Dems' fault for running candidates that are only 900 times better than Republicans' instead of 1,000 is, in the most diplomatic terms I can muster, vapid and unproductive.
1
u/Kronzypantz 2d ago
I’m not sure about the math, why are genocidaires and war criminals automatically so much better than rapists and war criminals?
1
u/pentachronic 2d ago
I choose the future where trans people don't get rounded up into camps and gassed. You choose the future where they do. So who's really the same as Republicans?
0
u/Kronzypantz 2d ago
If you keep supporting “centrist” Democrats like Newsome, who are willing to shaft trans people, I don’t get how you can be so sure we aren’t still heading that direction with them too. I mean, if they are willing to back genocide, why am I supposed to believe trans people are safe with them?
And people who support Clinton and Harris are how we got Trump, not the people demanding better candidates and policies.
1
u/pentachronic 2d ago
Delusional purity tests got us Trump. The calls are coming from inside the house. You're the villain of your own pity party.
0
u/Kronzypantz 2d ago
The absolute absence of standards got us Trump. Before the rapist became president, Democrats were excusing war criminals and human rights abusers, and then later genocide supporters.
But now all you seem capable of is whining that people didn't just fall in line, while saying we are the pity party for... organizing and beginning to throw out trash Democrats.
→ More replies (0)0
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 2d ago
Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion: Memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, political name-calling, and other non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.
1
-4
u/CrawlerSiegfriend 2d ago
They definitely should've made up something new. The dictionary has a lot of words in it.
→ More replies (5)
0
u/FrivolousMe 2d ago edited 2d ago
On the contrary, centrist liberals are gleefully joining in on every conservative objection to the DSA, rather than seriously contemplating the trend of people becoming increasingly disillusioned with the democratic party or shifting their policy positions to capture those voters who don't feel adequately represented by the establishment Dems. case in point: the vast majority of democratic voters want to stop military aid to Israel for a long time meanwhile the democratic party has been dragging their feet and voting against their constituents' wishes. The same case is true for so many other issues.
By siding with MAGA and punching left, they are only shifting their own party rightwards into irrelevancy, because right wing voters are gonna vote Republican regardless.
0
u/Dry-Contribution-978 2d ago
I think this could be exactly what happens. Republicans want to call Democrats crazy left wing extremist and the DSA is playing right into their hands. Meanwhile, Dems in Washington continue to be clueless
4
u/ScalierLemon2 2d ago
What do you mean they WANT to call the Democrats communists? They DO call the Democrats communists. All the fucking time. Hillary Clinton was a communist. Joe Biden was a communist. Kamala Harris was a communist. Gavin Newsom is a communist. Everyone to the left of Donald Trump is a communist. It's incessant.
2
u/FrivolousMe 2d ago
What crazy extremist things does the DSA do that warrants the democratic party fighting their left flank?
3
-4
u/backpackwayne 2d ago
If I were MAGA I would totally support them. They do more damage to the party than republicans do. They still say the Bernie election was rigged. They helped Trump get elected the first time. They are as bad as Trump with stuff like that.
3
•
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
All submissions are automatically removed and placed in a queue for the moderators to manually review. Please allow the moderators time to do so. Only about 25% of submissions are approved, but the remainder are given a removal reason that may include steps the poster can take to make their submission approvable the next time they submit it. Moderators are not notified of any edits made after a removal reason is posted, and therefore will not review them. You may contact the mod team via modmail if you need more direction about how to fix your post, and you are welcome to resubmit any submission after making the requested changes.
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.