What the Democratic Socialist of America's Victories Reveal

The recent Democratic primary victories in New York and Colorado by candidates of the Democratic Socialists of America (hereafter (DSA) have sent shock waves through the political establishment. Three candidates sponsored by the DSA won their races, the most impressive win was Brad Lander's thirty-two point thrashing of Representative Dan Goldman, the same who led the impeachment effort against President Donald Trump in his first term. At one of the evening's celebrations, supporters of the DSA taunted House Democrat minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries with chants of "you're next." In Colorado, Ethiopian born Melat Kiros defeated fifteen term Representative Diane DeGette in Colorado's First Congressional District, a district that includes the city of Denver. Democrat leaders are not amused, yet the Democrats and the Right may have some lessons to learn from these primary upsets.


First, the DSA recognized that the two-party system is a rigged casino. Ballot access, outside of a few states such as South Carolina, is a major hurdle. Second, funding, brand recognition, and organization are major challenges as well if one chooses to run outside the system. The DSA decided to work within the system, and the Democrats are crying foul, a bit like when the pit boss spots you counting cards at the blackjack table. Third, the DSA ground game was superb, especially in New York. Primaries do not often generate much voter interest, so mobilization of a key demographic can result in significant upsets, just ask Representative Thomas Massie. In the case of New York, DSA strategists identified under Millennials and Gen Z voters who were wealthy, gentrifying urban neighborhoods, progressive in their politics, and critical of the close ties between the United States and Israel and turned them out to the polls. Most analysts believe this was the demographic which swept the DSA to victory.


The Democrat and Republican have reacted in predictable fashion. The Republicans have wasted no time in attempting to fan the flames of a new Red Scare as the midterms approach, while the mainstream Democrats are protesting their innocence of any sort of dalliance with socialism.


But how socialist are the members of the DSA? The old socialists and Marxists that I knew in graduate school and academia were mostly a hardworking and rigorous lot, serious intellectuals. They had to be since they were wrong. They read and knew Marx and Lenin, Karl Kautsky and Antonio Gramsci, the more curious ones engaged Ludwig von Mises's critique of socialism and read Giovanni Gentile, the Italian philosopher of fascism. Lenin is among the DSA pantheon of heroes, but so are Ho Chi Minh, a nationalist and socialist (National Socialist? Sorry I could not resist.), and Che Guevera. The positions of the DSA are telling. In domestic policy they seek to expand Medicare to all, open the borders to migrants and end deportations, abolish prisons, and provide federal job guarantees. Medicare for all has been a staple of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party for decades, after all why should only the elderly have crummy health care coverage. Their other positions have more in common with Spanish anarchists. Socialists and communists love prisons and make generous use of them. Moreover, even when spouting Marxism, the folks at the DSA sound a bit incoherent. Steven Richards in a piece for justthenews.com quoted Megan Romer, a member of the DSA's Red Star Caucus, saying, "We understand Marxism as a living, breathing, theoretical framework, which is not and never can be a static set of dogmas." Marx certainly viewed his theory as a "static set of dogmas," indeed one of the worst insults communists hurled at straying brethren was "revisionist." Also, it is not clear how theoretical frameworks are "living, breathing." When Darializa Avila Chevalier was asked if prisons might be a good idea for murderers who pose a threat to society, her answer was a convoluted nonanswer, ''As someone who has worked with folks who have been incarcerated, who have felt ostracized, for lack of a better term, by so many facets of our society for being poor, for being Black, for being Latino,' I work at a public defender’s office where most of our clients are incredibly poor black and brown New Yorkers. And for so many, the crimes that they’re being indicted for are crimes of poverty, or the effects of poverty." No, these are not your grandpa's rigorous Marxists.


So how did these folks unseat, in some cases, long standing and powerful incumbents? As I have suggested elsewhere, one of the major political splits in the United States is generational. A few of our political leaders are aging Silent Generation members; many are Baby Boomers, and a substantial number are older Generation X. The Millennials and Generation Z, especially Generation Z, have a distaste for a political establishment they view as a creation by the Boomers, of the Boomers, and for the Boomers. Many younger people, both left and right are critical of the federal government's interventionist foreign policy, severely critical of the federal government's relationship with the state of Israel and view the federal republic as a corrupted and failed experiment. Many of the politically active among Gen Z have authoritarian leanings whether they identify with the right or the left. There are very few devolutionists or decentralizers among this generation. I know, I teach some of these folks. A student of mine who identifies with the right supports universal Medicare, nationalization of parts of the financial system, and higher taxes upon the rich. And other young people I know (with a few exceptions) who identify as monarchists, fascists, or nationalists, are as ignorant of the theoretical work done in support of these positions as many of their left-wing adversaries.


The point is that these younger folks who are politically active will not fit neatly into any ideological box or category. They are disestablishmentarians with authoritarian leanings. To once more quote Ms. Romer, there is no "static set of dogmas." What the youngsters all seem to agree on is that they detest the Boomers and what they perceive as their regime. While this may make for some interesting classroom discussions, it points to significant political instability in the Union's near future. The Boomers have no idea what is coming for them.​