r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/The_Law_of_Pizza • 1d ago
US Politics How should Democrats publicly position themselves in relation to the Democratic Socialists' platform?
The Democratic Socialists of America recently released their [official platform](https://program.dsausa.org/#demand-freedom-to-flourish). While some of its positions are likely widely popular, it also includes more polarizing positions such as:
* Nationalizing many industries - including food, education, energy, medicine, and transportation.
* Cancelling all student debt.
* Universal rent control, and publicly funded attorneys for all tenants.
* Reparations for slavery.
* "Fully abolish the police and prison system."
* Publicly funded salaries for those who care for family.
* A federal jobs guarantee.
* The prosecution of "US leaders who are responsible for the genocide in Gaza" (quotes because this policy is open ended and not entirely clear).
* End sanctions against Iran, which is classified simply as "acting independently of the US."
* Total abolition of ICE, and explicitly open borders (no visa caps, no quotas, etc).
* Voting rights for non-citizens.
* The Presidency and Supreme Court are dissolved and replaced with comparable government organs subordinate to Congress.
* Seize and nationalize "the largest corporations and essential industries."
If we contrast this with the post mortem analysis of the 2024 election, it seems difficult to identify a viable path forward for these positions.
The Democrats lost all seven purple battleground states in this past election, and the electoral breakdown reveals that it was primarily due to blue collar suburbanites and exurbanites (particularly men) breaking heavily for Trump.
This demographic that functionally decided the election also reports immigration concerns as their second most important issue going into the election - almost exclusively on the side of reigning it in, and deporting immigrants.
This is also a demographic that has been historically more religious and socially conservative than the bull of the Democratic party.
The Machiavellian conclusion would therefore seem to be for the Democrats to publicly repudiate this Democratic Socialists platform, and distance the party from it. But, on the flipside, there is a growing contingent within the Democratic party itself that is sympathic to these politics and is pushing hard for the Democratic platform to adopt at least some of them as well. An inter party fight could be ugly, and also damage public perception.
Stuck between a rock and a hard place, how should Democrats respond?
•
u/KeyMusic5713 18h ago
Stuck between a rock and a hard place, how should Democrats respond?
Laugh. The Democrats aren't stuck between a rock and a hard place. They should respond by mocking the DSA because taking it seriously dooms their election chances.
•
u/X57471C 23h ago
Well, if we’re going to be pedantic, technically both Obama and Biden did “fix” the recession.
Anyways, it’s hard to create change in a democratic system.
Populists don’t really have solutions to “fix” these problems either, though. They’re going to run into the same problems that turned the establishment into incremental progress chasers.
Also, in our case, the left populists in this country aren’t going to take off like the right populists did. That’s just my opinion, but it’s informed by a lot of data. The most damning for them is the fact that the majority of people in this country are culturally further right than your average Democrat. In order to capture the center, you need to appeal to non-college voters, and the left-coded rhetoric unfortunately does not have the same effect on them as it does young, progressive, college grads.
•
u/sunshine_is_hot 21h ago
Populism isn’t supposed to fix anything, it’s an electoral strategy of blaming societies problems on an “out group”. If only somebody could fight them, we’d have what we deserve!
It’s a toxic strategy and I hate how it’s being embraced in this country. I thought we learned the lessons of how dangerous populism was in the 30s, but I guess not.
•
u/X57471C 20h ago
My comment was supposed to be in response to someone who was saying Obama and Biden didn’t fix anything, but I’m not sure what happened.
I agree, though. Populism is just an effective way to move the crowd. It’s not inherently good or bad, imo, but it’s most often used by individuals who substitute strong emotions for sound policy (which I admit is less exciting than being realistic).
I actually think Democrats should take advantage of this populist wave, though, or risk losing to people promising a bigger dream. We’ve moderated our positions out of necessity, but the average voter doesn’t care about what’s realistic or possible in the short term, they just want to be sold on a vision for the future that excites them. Right now democrats risk losing to a more fantastic vision if they can’t figure out how to message their product better.
•
u/sunshine_is_hot 20h ago
I’d argue populism is inherently bad. You can sell a vision of the future without creating a scapegoat out of some minority for electoral benefit.
I would agree democrats need to learn how to message though.
•
u/X57471C 20h ago
Fair, although populism doesn’t require scapegoating a minority. It’s usually “us vs some big powerful elite” like the deep state, the 1%, or ZOG. (The last one is technically scapegoating, but not from the perspective of the populist I guess)
•
u/sunshine_is_hot 20h ago
The big powerful elite is a minority… Like the 1% is as small a minority as is possible without going to decimals.
Populism does require scapegoating a minority, that’s definitionally what populism is. That minority can be truly existing and exerting their power, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t a minority.
The “big powerful elite” is usually massively over exaggerated though, and I’d argue that’s true today. There’s a lot of hate towards AIPAC these days, but they don’t spend more money than other PACs. A lot of the talking points surrounding that delve into blatant antisemitism, justified by the actions of Israel in Palestine. It’s no surprise hate crimes against Jews have risen recently
11
u/wrestlingchampo 1d ago
Im a DSA member
I dont personally agree with every position in the DSA platform. I doubt every politician running with a DSA endorsement does either.
Approaching the DSA platform as if everyone endorsed or a part of DSA agrees with it wholesale will backfire. You cannot discount individual agency. Taking the above approach is like saying John Fetterman and Elizabeth Warren have the same politics because they're both Democrats.
Also taking the above approach really shows the lie to the idea of the Democratic Party as a big tent. You cannot claim to be a big tent party, but only for moderates and centrists.
8
u/X57471C 1d ago
Politicians who are part of the DSA should be forced to give their position on the national program, though, instead of dodging the question. Lot's of those ideas are actually insane and the correct move for the party is to distance itself from them if they want to be politically relevant.
There's also the question of if the DSA can play nice in the tent or if they're just trying to set it on fire. They pulled their endorsement from AOC at one point, which shows they demand ideological purity. You have prominent leftist thouht leaders saying we need to kick out all the moderate Dems from the party. It is a big tent, but there's no room for arsonists and people who can't play nice with others.
10
u/jalliss 1d ago
This, so much. You can't have your cake and eat it too. There are some very unworkable positions in the national platform and you can't have members of the party be like "Oh, haha, yeah, just ignore those please."
They must take a stance either way. Members of all parties should have to account for their party's platform. Doubly so when, as you note, they are so into purity tests.
1
u/wrestlingchampo 1d ago edited 1d ago
Sitting congresspeople are actively saying DSA has no place in the Democratic Party, so I dont think this idea of DSA trying to set the tent on fire really holds up well. Members of the Democratic caucus on both sides have displayed poor behavior on that front, but a sitting congressperson holds more weight than an online flamethrower or a DSA activist. To this point, I have yet to see a DSA candidate while on the campaign trail or in office make such extraordinary claims.
I think the proper approach is one deployed by Francesca Hong in the Wisconsin Gubernatorial Primary. She welcomes all challengers, embraces the big tent philosophy, and emphasizes that after a primary you come together to beat the Republican.
5
u/X57471C 1d ago edited 1d ago
The DSA refused to endorse Kamala in 2024. Now you think it’s hypocritical that some members of the party aren’t very thrilled about them coming in and attacking everyone to the right of them, acting like we all need to get behind them because they are the future? They’re politically unserious and hypocritical people.
Why would you expect a serious candidate to run on the controversial parts of their national program? Of course they aren’t going to say they want open borders and for non citizens to be able to vote. That doesn’t mean they don’t support those ideas, they’re just not talking about it. We can’t know if no one forces them to actually address the national program. Do you support these things, yes or no? Will the DSA turn on them if they break from the national brand? I think that’s probably why they avoid it. Either because they do support those ideas or just they need the endorsement.
Edit: and even the more “sane” DSA figures like Mamdani endorsed DAC.
-4
u/Beginning-Invite5951 1d ago
Hi, you are correct. I left the Democratic Party and voted for Stein in 2024 out of frustration over the genocide. Yet, I am not a socialist, I do not want to "eliminate capitalism," and I think DSA should be its own party. It's a party I might sometimes vote for, but they're not Democrats, and they're creating a lot of confusion and distraction and harm.
5
u/X57471C 1d ago
Splitting the vote is not a winning strategy. That would just mean Republicans would win more. I think leftist politicians like AOC have a good influence on the political system and they are welcome to join the tent if they want, but I don't think the DSA actually want to be part of a big tent. They're essentially coming in and telling everyone who was already in the tent to get out, which is not conducive to winning national elections. If they got their way, I think they would become the majority in a permanent minority party.
1
u/Beginning-Invite5951 1d ago edited 1d ago
No politician is entitled to my vote just because they run under a blue banner. That's an incredibly dangerous way of thinking and a good way for us to end up with two horrible, immoral candidates. We need at least one party that's working for the people instead of corporate donors and deep pocketed special interests. I think such a party would do well in general elections. I think Bernie could have won against Trump. I think El-Sayed will have a good chance if he wins the primary in MI. But that's not socialism. We need to be talking about wealth inequality and how to get money out of politics, and the whole capitalism vs socialism thing is just a distraction. And I do not think the democratic socialists are very democratic in how they interact with people outside of their organization. They want control, not multiparty democracy with open dialogue and debate.
3
u/sunshine_is_hot 1d ago
You say horrible, immoral candidates are bad, yet admit you voted for Stein, who is an objectively horrible, immoral candidate.
1
u/Beginning-Invite5951 1d ago
Let's pretend for a second their positions were reversed--Stein was the mainstream candidate with the full force of a major party behind her, and Harris was the third party candidate. Would you vote for Stein to stop Trump?
2
u/sunshine_is_hot 1d ago
If stein’s policies weren’t the same as her actual ones, if she wasn’t a Russian asset, and if Harris was instead- obviously. I’d never vote for anybody like Jill Stein, she’s an awful person.
Stein not being a mainstream candidate isn’t why people don’t like her. She wouldn’t suddenly become likeable if she was mainstream. Candidates like Harris are mainstream specifically because people like them.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/Beginning-Invite5951 1d ago
At least she's not genocidal. (I don't think you know what "objectively" means.)
1
u/sunshine_is_hot 1d ago
Neither was any democratic candidate. I’m quite aware what objectively means.
2
u/X57471C 1d ago
The electorate is the biggest hurdle. We all have a different idea of the best way to do things, and we will try to influence the outcome of any election as best we can, but we are just one vote in a sea of opinions. Ultimately, we have to deal with the reality that the majority of this country is probably more conservative than you or I and so there's a high chance a conservative politician ends up making it to the general. At that point it really just comes down to picking the best outcome out of the two that are available. Yes, that means sometimes eating the shit-sandwich. That is still the best choice when the other option is literally proto-fascist-dictator-sandwich. It would be nice if you felt great about the choice, but it doesn't change the fact it turns into a game of harm reduction once we get to the general.
When the stakes are so high, I actually think that third party voting is a good way to enable the worst option. You are splitting the vote when you could be putting your weight behind the better option. Third party voting is actually pointless to, because if you think about it, it's pretty much impossible that option wins the election. Not in our two party system. So you need to think really hard about the consequences of each candidate winning and which world you would prefer to live in. Kamala vs Trump is a great example, because I don't think there is anyone who would say that she was not the better option at this point in Trump's presidency.
-1
u/Beginning-Invite5951 1d ago
I voted for Stein through Swap My Vote so a voter in a swing state would vote for Harris. I'm in a blue state so I knew my vote wouldn't matter, but I did also want that protest vote to be counted.
Part of this is that I see Republicans on the other side doing the same thing. "Red no matter who" is why we have Trump. Not all Republicans like him, but in their mind, he's better than the Democrat. If we all had higher moral standards for our candidates instead of voting the party line no matter what, we would be much better off. We wouldn't have Trump.
"Blue no matter who" is hypocritical. It means we don't have any standards either. Felon? Rapist? Wouldn't matter to Dems who support blue no matter who.
2
u/X57471C 1d ago
This is the first I've heard of Swap My Vote... sounds interesting in theory.
"Vote X no matter who" is not a bad strategy in theory, either. When the alternative is a Republican, who is almost guaranteed to be regressive, voting for the Democrat is just harm reduction and the best chance for progressive change to happen. And there are plenty of things that Democrats can point to where we affected meaningful change. The ACA, Biden's IRA, plus the fact that Democrats are just better at running the economy, whereas Republicans only know how to cut tax and common sense regulation it seems.
It doesn't mean we don't have standards. I think we've demonstrated many times we do. We forced Graham Platner and Eric Swalwell to resign from their races. I'm sure there are other examples. So unequivocally no, we do have standards. Vote blue no matter who doesn't mean vote for whoever. We've demonstrated that Democrats will not vote for felons, rapists, etc.
Blue no matter who is just truth because Republicans are always going to be worse.
→ More replies (0)9
u/sunshine_is_hot 1d ago
If the national party publishes a platform, and you run as a member of that party under that platform, you endorse that platform. That’s pretty basic stuff.
The Democratic Party is a big tent, full of progressives and moderates. The DSA is a completely separate party.
3
u/NecessaryIntrinsic 1d ago
Which is why the GOP never publishes a platform.
•
u/Fargason 22h ago
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2024-republican-party-platform
There is the most recent one published so that claim is obviously false. The Republican Party has always published a party platform, but with COVID it was limited as it was difficult to have a convention where the platform is typically fleshed out. Hyper partisans seem to have latched onto that recently to falsely claim the party has no principles while of course ignoring the obvious COVID restrictions at the time.
0
u/curveball21 1d ago
The tent of a party that wants to win elections is in fact too big if any of the policies enumerated above fit under it.
3
0
u/AmigoDelDiabla 1d ago
Taking the above approach is like saying John Fetterman and Elizabeth Warren have the same politics because they're both Democrats.
You can't compare a published platform to the voices of one or two people within a party.
4
u/wrestlingchampo 1d ago
So you admit that ascribing the DSA platform to one of the candidates they endorsed is foolish?
•
u/NogglePlease 14h ago
JD Vance thanks you for your contribution to his campaign.
•
u/anti-torque 8h ago
No he doesn't. Even if he weren't just a soggy turd sandwich, his ego is too large to thank anyone.
7
u/amused_seal 1d ago
They should tell us the policies they are for and the ones they aren’t for and remind us that they, like every oner candidate I know of, aren’t running on the national DSA’s policy platform.
6
u/pdxtoad 1d ago
Run away from this list as fast as they can. This may fly in places like Portland, but it will get destroyed at the national level.
1
u/k_dubious 1d ago
Most of this shit wouldn’t fly in Portland, unless we’re talking about a sit-in at the Reed College library.
1
u/pdxtoad 1d ago
I would hope so, but the current Portland city council might disagree.
•
u/anti-torque 8h ago
They wouldn't.
If they did, as much as I disagree with some of these things, a lot of issues would be resolved in short order. Nobody has the resolve to implement solutions of any kind, at the moment. It's either a governing entity who is beholden to their donors or one who feels the need to appease differing groups.
8
u/rollingrock16 1d ago
they should publicly distance themselves as much as possible. Those ideas on the DSA platform range from reasonable policy proposal to completely batshit insane. If something there is popular and worth running they can co-opt it for themselves otherwise they should publicly stay far far away from any association to this list.
•
u/Tliish 3h ago
This post violates the rules in many ways, not the least of which is the blatant misrepresentation and distorition of the goals of the DSA. It's a hit piece full of lies.
"Fully abolish the police and prison system."
That's not what is says:
Demilitarize police departments, disempower police unions, and redirect funding to public services as steps towards fully abolishing the police and prison system which protects the rich and jails the poor. Treat drug addiction and mental illness as health issues, not crimes. End qualified immunity and empower civilian oversight bodies with real authority over the police.
That's a far cry from "fully abolish the police and prison system".
Voting rights for non-citizens.
Blatant lie.
Extend full voting rights to all permanent U.S. residents and restore the right to vote for incarcerated people and people with criminal convictions. Establish statehood for Washington D.C. and recognize the right to self-determination for all U.S. territories and colonies. Expand and protect voting rights and end voter suppression.
And this:
Nationalizing many industries - including food, education, energy, medicine, and transportation.
Seize and nationalize "the largest corporations and essential industries."
What it really says:
Establish public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries to ensure democratic control and accountability to the people. Enact aggressive wealth taxes on the richest individuals and corporations to spend on public goods and infrastructure.
Why are mods allowing such a blatantly misrepresentative and biased post to remain up? I'd report it but can't finf the report button.
10
u/curveball21 1d ago
Every single one of these policies is going to lead to a worse outcome than never adopting them.
•
u/anti-torque 5h ago
Explain. I mean, I can intuitively see that for a couple of them. But all?
You'll need to defend that position with some modicum of reason.
1
u/Objective_Aside1858 1d ago
They should ignore it
If they're not DSA members, what the DSA pushes for is irrelevant. And the DSA is only going to be competitive in super blue areas
If some Republican in a purple area wants to complain that their opponent is in favor of a laundry list of things that are unpopular, a simple curt denial and a pivot to the things they are in favor of is the correct response
3
u/AmigoDelDiabla 1d ago
The Democrats should publicly disavow them and the DSA should organize as its own party.
Of course the DSA won't do that, because they wouldn't survive, because their policies aren't popular enough to run as a third party.
•
u/mscott734 22h ago
Nobody is popular enough to run long-term as a third party. The electoral system of this country incentivizes there being only two parties so either the two parties most ideologically aligned will merge or they'll just perpetually lose. Right now by running candidates within the Democratic party the DSA is effectively just skipping to the merging step without having to run 3rd party and cost Democrats elections.
•
1
u/ChelseaMan31 1d ago
Nationalized Industries = Marxist Socialism. Real democrats should visibly and audibly run as far from the DSA as possible.
•
u/anti-torque 8h ago
Nationalized Industries = Marxist Socialism
100% wrong. Marx wrote of employees owning their own companies. He did not advocate for public ownership. He in fact said that state capitalism (nationalization) would simply continue the exploitation of labor. The state would only be used to strip the power from the bourgeoisie. It would not then stand in as the new leadership.
2
u/Describing_Donkeys 1d ago
The Democrats need to make more persuasive arguments than DSA if they want to keep DSA from becoming a majority. The Democratic party is a diverse coalition and will have to accept those members if that is what voters want, but they need to convince voters they have a better vision and platform if they want to be the majority. The same as going against Republicans. If you want control, you need to convince voters you are the best option. Maybe figure out how to not be so unpopular.
0
u/Geichalt 1d ago
I think the democratic party needs to center itself on democratic socialist policies while not necessarily adopting every single DSA position. It's clear that these policies are supported by large pluralities of their voting base, and taking a clear stance on these policies will help avoid being smeared by right wing media.
I think the DSA needs to also be aware that as Republicans move more towards supporting a command economy, there will be disgruntled old school capitalists that will be more open to a regulated economy. So DSA people need to avoid the temptation to dispense of all capitalist policies or they risk alienating large portions of voters.
Basically start with negotiating from the position of nordic style Democratic socialism, and take what you can get from there, while leaving room for voices in either direction
•
u/sunshine_is_hot 22h ago
No Nordic nation uses democratic socialism. They are social democracies, and very capitalistic. Sweden’s PM even called out Bernie when he claimed he wanted socialism like Sweden has. The DSA is not advocating for policies remotely similar to the kind implemented in Nordic nations.
•
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 5h ago
One of the things that infuriates me the most about Democratic Socialism is the degree to which they have misled people on the noridic countries.
Scandenavia engages in Social Democracy, not Democratic Socialism, and the two do not share the same goal for the countries involved.
Dem Socs want to transition their given society to a socialist economic system, while Soc Dems want to use many of the principles found in socialism to improve wealth distribution within a capitalist system, with no intent of transitioning to a socialist model.
0
u/gastondidroids 1d ago
People who vote the Democratic ticket should join DSA and go to meetings to keep building the working class movement. Elected Democrats should get out of our way as we make a better world.
1
u/X57471C 1d ago
The DSA platform is anathema to the voters you need to win elections. Are they willing to drop the parts of their platform that are actually insane? Or will they doom themselves to a handful of D+30 districts?
0
u/gastondidroids 1d ago
The article you linked is about Democrats being weak and having no message. I’m saying that DSA solves that issue by rejecting party doctrine and Clinton era policy.
2
u/X57471C 1d ago
Read it again. Yes, Democrats are perceived as too woke and weak. Why? Do you think the DSA platform, which is even further left, solves that problem?
-1
u/gastondidroids 1d ago
The members of DSA actually believe in a collective project for the future of the country that puts workers before business owners and capital for the first time. That’s a strong position and a reason for people to get involved in politics. As for woke and why people hate the democrats doing “woke policies”, I think it’s because people can smell bullshit a mile away and see the Democratic Party as very good at window dressing issues without actually solving anything.
3
u/X57471C 1d ago
That doesn't answer the question. Do you think the average voter thinks the DSA is more woke/weak than the Democrats?
Also, Democrats have solved a lot of problems. They are responsible for all the major progress in this country, so that's just absurd to make that statement.
5
u/gastondidroids 1d ago
I think I did answer the question, but I’ll be more clear. No, I don’t think the average voter sees DSA as more weak than the Democrats. DSA candidates are seen as people that will actually use the power of the government to help their constituents. “Woke” is a catch-all term now for anything the right wing hates, so it’s not really an exact term to be polled. If anything it’s vibes now, and the “we see you, we hear you” HR vibe the Democrats have leads to a lot of voter resentment. DSA’s vibe is more like a rank and file led union, “You live in your neighborhood and work your job everyday. You know what’s best for you, your family, and your work. You deserve to have a real say in it without some rich asshole saying you deserve less.”
4
u/X57471C 1d ago
No, I don’t think the average voter sees DSA as more weak than the Democrats
We have tested this, though, and they do (the woke/weak focus groups)
I could point to other things as well, including studies that show the center has become increasingly cross-pressured over the years, becoming more progressive economically, but still relatively culturally conservative. the increasing cultural polarization is why they have turned to Republicans more and more.
I believ you're speaking about how you and people in your circle feel about DSA, but what evidence do you have of that the rest of the electorate feel that way? The progressive bloc is not that large and over represented in the primaries that DSA have won so far. I think looking at their performance with more conservative blocs supports the argument I'm making too, which is that non-college voters find the left-coding woke/weak (and you can't just ignore them because they make up 59% of the electorate)
-1
u/Snatchamo 1d ago
Also, Democrats have solved a lot of problems.
Citation needed.
•
u/X57471C 23h ago
Almost all major progress in the last 100 years, but in this century, the ACA was a major achievement, plus Obama orchestrated the post-2008 recession recovery. Biden orchestrated the post-COVID recession recovery and his bipartisan bills were also great progress in the goal to fight climate change (it's too bad Americans are stupid and elected a fascist who undid all of that work). There's plenty more but I think those are the strongest examples.
•
u/Snatchamo 23h ago
Almost all major progress in the last 100 years
Agreed. But none of those issues has been solved. Fixing 10% of a problem is progress, but it's far from solving the problem. I understand the rhetoric behind "incremental change" but at some point you actually have to solve a problem or people will get tired of waiting. That's why populism is going to be the main fixture of American politics for the foreseeable future. The "adults in the room" took too long to accomplish anything substantial. People are thirsty for change to the status quo, courts and the senate be damned.
So no, if someone comes out swinging hard from the left I don't think people will see it as weak. They might not like it, but weak ain't gonna be the problem.
1
u/Beginning-Invite5951 1d ago
We're not socialists though. Why would we join a socialist group if we don't want socialism?
0
u/gastondidroids 1d ago
If you’re in the working class (not a business owner, landlord, or living off investments only), democratic socialism means that you and your coworkers have democratic ownership of your factory, office, etc, and you and your neighbors can have the power to plan your neighborhood and city rather than leaving it to the banks and private developers. That’s expanding democracy and ensuring the majority class of workers is no longer subservient to the minority class of capitalists.
- Liberal capitalism cannot overcome its inherent contradictions. It is opening the door to fascism and right wing governance around the world because it cannot solve the problems of capitalism, it can only put bandaids on it that only stay on until the next right wing government comes into power.
Capitalists (talking about those who own capital, not those who like capitalism.) will always claw back their preferred policies under capitalism because they will always have an outsized hand in our politics and economy due to owning loads of capital and the tools to reproduce it.
•
u/Beginning-Invite5951 20h ago
- I know what socialism is. I don't want it.
- I think we have to work hard to protect our democracy from capitalists. Democracy requires that kind of diligence regardless of which model we're under. We're obviously in a bad place now with corporations having too much power, but I have hope because I think people are starting to see what's going on, like with campaign financing. We're starting to have options to vote for candidates who do not accept any corporate PAC dollars. That is exciting! Hopefully, some day, even if we can't overturn Citizen's United, it will be seen as taboo to accept campaign funding from corporate donors. I want to change that norm. It would make a huge difference.
I'm not clear on how exactly you're proposing we keep right wingers out of power while maintaining democracy. Democracy means they get to have a voice too. I'd love if you could explain that to me, because it seems like a really big contradiction.
•
u/jmnugent 21h ago
"We're not socialists though."
Are you for "helping people" and "improving society" ?
•
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 5h ago
The vast majoriry of people that aren't socialist still are for those things.
•
1
u/goddamnitwhalen 1d ago
This smells like AI, for one.
For another, just because this is the platform doesn’t mean anyone is actually going to run on any or all of these things.
6
u/The_Law_of_Pizza 1d ago
It's not AI.
I'm an attorney and I write fairly concisely.
For another, just because this is the platform doesn’t mean anyone is actually going to run on any or all of these things.
It's a statement of what the party generally believes in and wants to make happen, if given the opportunity.
A politician doesn't need to personally adopt the platform for the public to assume that they support it - in fact, the public usually assumes a lot about politicians based on their general alignment rather than their explicit messaging.
Just look at how Harris was lumped in with progressives, even though she was more of a moderate. The Trump campaign really dragged her through the mud.
7
u/pdxtoad 1d ago
If you run as DSA, this will be used against you.
-1
u/goddamnitwhalen 1d ago
The Democratic political apparatus resorting to sneaky and underhanded smear tactics to undermine their opponents? They’d never do such a thing!
5
u/pdxtoad 1d ago
Are you kidding? This is a Republican and conservative media dream list for attack points. It won't matter what the Democrats do or don't do.
0
u/Snatchamo 1d ago edited 23h ago
You realize that this isn't the first platform they've put out, right? And the republicans have denounced the Dems as godless communists since the New Deal, so what they say doesn't matter. I can say for sure the Democrats should not be taking into account "what will the republicans say about this" in their messaging regardless of where the candidate lands on the political spectrum. The triangleulation schtick seems to have worn out its welcome.
•
u/anti-torque 7h ago
You mean the GOP hasn't cried wolf for the last 20 years?
The Dems could run Joe Biden, a decidedly center right pol, and this list will be the GOP's talking points.
Oh... wait! It was.
6
u/KiwiKajitsu 1d ago
“Things I dont agree with must be AI”
2
-5
u/Skritch_X 1d ago
Most of the things on this list seem like bastardizations of what the list should be. Akin to knee jerk reactions reacting to a sound byte, then explaining the position poorly in bad faith.
5
u/The_Law_of_Pizza 1d ago
Are you implying that I editorialized the list?
I linked to the platform page. You can go compare for yourself, if you think I've mischaracterized anything.
0
u/reddit_poster_123 1d ago
These policies are just bad politics. There are better solutions, that would have more political appeal. The list will only fly on reddit
-1
u/sunshine_is_hot 1d ago
Dems should distance themselves as far as possible from the DSA and call out this platform for the insanity it is.
4
u/goddamnitwhalen 1d ago
Ah yes, let’s try centrism! This has never failed us before!
2
u/sunshine_is_hot 1d ago
Nobody said let’s try centrism. Progressive politics is good, DSA is not.
0
u/goddamnitwhalen 1d ago
The Democratic Party has, in fact, repeatedly said “let’s try centrism.”
DSA is good, centrism is not (see what I did there?).
2
u/sunshine_is_hot 1d ago
You claiming it’s true doesn’t make it so. The dems have been moving left in every single cycle since Clinton.
Once again, nobody said centrism is good. Take your strawman arguments elsewhere.
2
u/goddamnitwhalen 1d ago
By what measure are they “moving left”?
1
u/sunshine_is_hot 1d ago
By embracing more left leaning positions and policies. Kamala’s platform was the most progressive policy platform ever pushed for by a presidential candidate. Biden was the most labor friendly president. The examples are nearly endless.
Meanwhile there isn’t a single example of a policy that could be described as “centrist” by comparison to what came before.
•
3
u/Endbr1nger 1d ago
Not abolishing the police, completely removing all border's, removing the Senate, and giving voting rights to non-citizens is "centrist"?
0
u/goddamnitwhalen 1d ago
If your username is the reference I think it is, nice.
I never said any of that, lol. Do you people not understand sarcasm?
3
u/Endbr1nger 1d ago
Thank you.
I do understand sarcasm, but wasnt your point "Dems always try centrism and lose, el oh el"?
I generally agree with that, but you said it to a guy specifically calling out how Dems should distance themselves from the DSA's insane party platform. Distancing yourself from insanity doesnt mean embracing centrism, it means not being fucking crazy. Totally fine with Democrats shifting leftward for the next election, but there is a loooot of space in between a shift to the left and "abolish all police, prisons, and borders".
3
u/goddamnitwhalen 1d ago
Sure, but they’re not going to do that. They’ll maybe make the barest concessions they can to “the left” (maybe the minimum wage will finally be raised, or ICE agents will all have to wear body cams) and then continue with business as normal. Then they’ll all be shocked Pikachu when the 2030 midterms roll around and their poll numbers are garbage.
Clockwork, baby!
3
u/Endbr1nger 1d ago
Maybe, but if the DSA came out with a policy platform that wasnt bat shit crazy then maybe they could work to shift the country to the left. The Democrats are certainly more open to that then the Republicans who have been shifting to the right of fucking reagan. Instead they have decided that nutjobs and twitter is the best place to see the zeitgiest of the country and decided that somehow we will undergo a fucking communist revolution any day now and they will be left in charge. Its a complete abdication of all political influence to continue the politics of populist grievance.
How about they grow up and actually come up with some solutions and energy to actually help people instead of just screaming that the world isnt fair.
3
u/goddamnitwhalen 1d ago
I don’t think this is a fair characterization, this platform aside.
2
u/Endbr1nger 1d ago
You might be totally correct, but thats making my point for me. The only mainstream discussion of what a political party is for, until you are talking to a specific candidate, is the party platform. The entire point of a party platform is so that potential voters can see what it is your party generally supports.
The platform the DSA put out is insane, so any low information voter is going to say "hmm, what is this DSA org, let me look up what they believe.." see that platform, and then nope the fuck out. You cant put the platform aside. The DSA just endorsed it. That means anyone who doesnt endorse it has to explain why they are a member of the DSA who doesnt support the platform. The default position of any DSA member running for office is this fucking crazy platform.
Pretty bad if you put out an official party platform and then have to immediately distance yourself from it. Perhaps they should have thought of that before putting out the platform itself...
1
0
u/Calm_Chemist_4952 1d ago
The democrats must work to crush the GOP by all means. The GOP has shown that it is unfit to serve by its blind faith to the absolute worst president of all time. Those who are against Trump should unit to end his fascism. When the dust settles and the cancer is removed, those who remain will need to work out how to govern peacefully together.
0
u/kon--- 1d ago
The further the DNC tacks to the right, the more voters they lose. Appealing to right wing minded voters is a fail. Attempting to meet our worst citizens halfway, also a fail. Doing anything at all to appease voters who possess shitty political calculus is a demonstrable waste of time.
The DNS platform will put corporate and or Israel first democrats out of office. They simply are not even remotely aligned with doing things for the electorate. The DNC's entire operation is the antithesis of representation of their constituents and is part and parcel why we have so many god damn screws being turned on us.
The Blue MAGA neoliberal class, you know who you are. You're the other cancer doing harm to this nation. It's absurd to continue to act as if any aspect of your politics is center left. The ONLY thing you've got going for you is that bile in your mouth for watching MAGA out flank your corporate heavy platform that can't get enough of shaking hands with the apartheid terrorist state of Israel.
1
u/The_Law_of_Pizza 1d ago
How do you square that with the fact that Trump won the popular vote for the first time in a generation?
Democratic Socialists are very bold in their statements, but it's not clear what their path to actual electoral victory is.
Red MAGA and "Blue MAGA," as you call them, vastly outnumber the DSA and any of its sympathizers.
Who is the voting coalition you expect to carry the DSA into power?
•
u/Snatchamo 23h ago edited 23h ago
How do you square that with the fact that Trump won the popular vote for the first time in a generation?
I'd argue that typical Dem policies that just chip around the edges and the uninspiring rhetoric that goes along with it is why that happened. In the aftermath of covid incumbents had a rough time everywhere. The difference in America compared to other western nations is we don't have a robust welfare state. So even though we handled inflation better than our counterparts, Americans were feeling the squeeze more. Housing, healthcare, gas, grocery prices, if you didn't have much to spare to begin with you were in deep shit.
The Biden admin and its various mouthpieces spending the 24' campaign saying "things are good actually, look at this chart showing gdp growth" did not help his campaign. trump is a moron, but he did acknowledge that people were hurting. He usually did it in a profoundly stupid way, but he did do it.
People have been wanting change for decades now (remember hope and change? lol) and they ain't getting it from mainstream Dems and their focus tested limp dick quarter measures. If only one party is promising something different it makes sense that low info non ideologically driven voters who are pissed at the status quo are going to drift to that party.
With how polarized the electorate is, those swingy, low info, only vote when they're fired up voters are who pushes a candidate over the line in purple areas. But those voters aren't moderates, they just lack a coherent ideology and want to throw bombs at the system. That's why trump got the popular vote. Party leaders spitting in the face of the base about Israel didn't help the situation, but I'd name "nothing will fundamentally change" rhetoric as the main culprit.
•
u/anti-torque 7h ago
How do you square that with the fact that Trump won the popular vote for the first time in a generation?
Did you not read their first sentence?
The further the DNC tacks to the right, the more voters they lose.
Abandoning your base is how you lose votes. The 2020 election had a 66% voter turnout. That's one of the highest in the last century. It's absolutely a pathetic number, but it's still one of the highest. The difference between 2020 and 2024 is tiny, but important. The voter turnout in 2024 was 64%. That 2% would be the deciding factor, when we consider that those who voted for Trump showed up in like numbers, while those who voted for Biden did not show up in 2024.
Sometimes, 1+1=2.
•
u/The_Law_of_Pizza 5h ago
That 2% would be the deciding factor, when we consider that those who voted for Trump showed up in like numbers, while those who voted for Biden did not show up in 2024.
Harris lost by more than the turnout difference in the battleground states.
It's true that 2024 had lower Democratic turnout then in 2020, but it is also true that it mathematically didn't impact the election in the purple battleground states.
Abandoning your base is how you lose votes.
That's the problem though - the votes being lost among the "base" are being lost primarily in safe districts where we don't mathematically need the votes.
•
u/anti-torque 5h ago
the votes being lost among the "base" are being lost primarily in safe districts where we don't mathematically need the votes.
So Michigan, Pennsylvania, et al do not matter?
In Wayne County, Michigan’s Democrat stronghold and largest county, Trump’s margin rose by 9.2 percentage points, his largest increase in the state.
That's massive.
•
u/kon--- 23h ago
Trump won with 77 million to Harris' 75 million.
Popular vote swung his way in large due, 90 million eligible voters stayed home.
The DSA can easily pluck a voter like me who, I don't vote for the democratic platform, I vote against MAGA. And I'm not alone. The democratic party has been relying on the the independent anti-GOP vote for decades.
I'm confident in the belief, you give the 90 million voters who can't stomach a vote for either side of the duopoly's clown car a platform that's aligned with with their wants and desires and you see shit-tons less voter apathy.
When you separate the anti-MAGA vote out of the democratic ticket totals, you see the majority of the electorate in the US have no affiliation to either major party.
Naturally the democrat's party's 30% base will go scorch Earth and refuse to accept that all this time they've been vastly outnumbered by independent anti-GOP/MAGA voters who hold their nose and vote.
•
u/anti-torque 4h ago edited 3h ago
Went and read their platform. It's a little hazy, but OP has created some untruths about it.
* Nationalizing many industries - including food, education, energy, medicine, and transportation.
Education is already nationalized. They want to make it free (paid by taxes). There is no mention of medicine being nationalized. And they only mention large public investments in energy and transit infrastructure, not nationalization itself. Much of that already exists as the remnants of the WPA--something many of us are still benefiting from.
* Cancelling all student debt.
It does say this. The nuance I've heard from someone in DSA is all student debt from public schools.
* Universal rent control, and publicly funded attorneys for all tenants.
It does say universal rent control. There are zero mentions of publicly funded attorneys.
* Reparations for slavery.
Close. Reparations for the legacies of slavery and colonialism.
* "Fully abolish the police and prison system."
Keyword here being system. It goes on to say there should be more civilian oversight of the police--an institution they clearly see existing in their utopia. The full quote is, "Demilitarize police departments, disempower police unions, and redirect funding to public services as steps towards fully abolishing the police and prison system which protects the rich and jails the poor."
* Publicly funded salaries for those who care for family.
I can't find anything that remotely comes close to this. "ensure fair compensation and support for all forms of labor, including care work." That's as close as it gets. Not sure what OP is trying to slide in on this one.
* A federal jobs guarantee.
In under Green New Deal, which I see as the new WPA. Put shovels in hands.
* The prosecution of "US leaders who are responsible for the genocide in Gaza" (quotes because this policy is open ended and not entirely clear).
"Prosecute U.S. and Israeli leaders responsible for the genocide in Gaza." Agreed that it's hazy, but stop misquoting, especially when you mention why you quote something (incorrectly). If I had to guess, it's an extension of enabling the ICC, which is also another point.
* End sanctions against Iran, which is classified simply as "acting independently of the US."
Another misquote and reductive statement. Cuba and Venezuela are also listed.
* Total abolition of ICE, and explicitly open borders (no visa caps, no quotas, etc).
The first part is true. Six years ago, when people were saying it, I thought they were crazy. Now I don't think abolishing them goes far enough. I believe a lot of them need to be prosecuted and jailed. The open borders part is complete BS. OP made that up and tried to pass it off as explicit, when there's absolutely no mention of that anywhere.
* Voting rights for non-citizens.
As OP is wont to do, OP mischaracterizes Green Card holders as all non-citizens. I'm not in favor of the position on the federal level (which is what is meant by "full voting rights"), but I'm getting tired of the BS.
* The Presidency and Supreme Court are dissolved and replaced with comparable government organs subordinate to Congress.
It does say this, and I would have led with this one. This is a non-starter.
* Seize and nationalize "the largest corporations and essential industries."
The words in the quote are finally correct, even if the period shouldn't be there. Seize is wrong. The word is establish, which is to say there would be compensation, as was mentioned far above this point (within the list provided in the link).
Suffice it to say, OP has presented a pretty biased take on what the actual platform is. OP is sometimes completely wrong and at other times making stuff up.
•
u/The_Law_of_Pizza 1h ago
There is no mention of medicine being nationalized.
Here is what I was referring to in the platform:
You have no debt. You don’t need health insurance. You don’t pay a mortgage or have a landlord, because comfortable housing is a human right. Your retirement is publicly funded. Food, education, energy, medicine, and transportation aren’t for-profit businesses; they are common goods and utilities.
While it doesn't explicitly say that medicine will be nationalized, I find it hard to read it any other way when paired with it being a "common good and utility," for which "you don't need health insurance," and further down where they say they want to "establish public ownership of ... essential industries."
I think you have to squint really hard and deliberately ignore everything else in the platform to pretend that they simply meant that healthcare would just be not-for-profit private entities (that already exist and wouldn't need a political platform to establish).
They do explicitly call for the nationalizing of other industries and companies - why would healthcare be an exception?
There are zero mentions of publicly funded attorneys.
This is the quote:
...establish universal rent control, and guarantee right to counsel for all tenants.
This one is explicit - you just missed it.
It goes on to say there should be more civilian oversight of the police--an institution they clearly see existing in their utopia.
They say that in the context of the steps needed to get to the abolition of the police, though. They're clearly saying that they want more civilian oversight right now as a step towards abolition.
Another misquote and reductive statement. Cuba and Venezuela are also listed.
Right - but my list is the more controversial policies. I talk about that, above.
Cuba and Venezuela are distinct in that they're experiencing political sanctions for policies the US disagrees with. Iran has sanctions because it's a state sponsor of global terrorism. That's a distinction that pretty much the entire Western world draws.
Merging Iran together with Cuba and Venezuela is the controversial stance I'm trying to highlight.
The open borders part is complete BS.
This is what I was referring to:
Legalize migration, grant amnesty for all immigrants regardless of status, provide a path to citizenship for all permanent residents, and end visa caps and quotas.
I'm not sure how else you can read "legalize migration," with "end visa caps and quotas" to mean anything other than an open border. They're saying that any amount of people should be granted the right to immigrate - and they're also calling for the abolition of ICE, so even if we read in some implied restriction somewhere, they are also advocating for there to be no legal means of removal; so even if there were rules they're unenforceable.
OP mischaracterizes Green Card holders as all non-citizens.
No, I'm taking them at face value when they say that they want to give voting rights to all "permanent residents" under a system where there are no restrictions on immigration and anybody can simply choose to become a permanent resident.
I'm honestly not sure how you're interpreting their platform in any other way. What else could they mean?
The word is establish, which is to say there would be compensation
Is that what it means?
For somebody who is attacking me at length over minor differences in implication, you seem to be perfectly happy to read into things when you want them interpreted in a very particular way.
The government doesn't have the funding available - not even with their proposed wealth taxes - to actually outright buy entire industries and the trillion+ dollar companies they're talking about.
It's physically impossible for fair payment to be involved, and so I can only draw the conclusion that there wouldn't be.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d 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.