"Socialism" is an abstract and ambiguous term. It is an academic term of art with multiple usages. In the American sense, it is basically The New Deal. What Republicans are relying on is exploiting a vague generality like "socialism" to manipulate voters and scare them. But, really, the American public is like that old aphorism that "I don't know anything about art, but I know what I like". The public doesn't know anything about the academic and/or historical socialism, but is sure knows what it likes. And, updated New Deal policies are extremely popular. Believe it or not, the public does know what is in its best interest.
Besides, Trump/MAGA/Republicans attack socialism while implementing fasism. If given a choice between fascism and socialism, I think most people will choose socialism.
This is the definition of socialism by Merriam-Webster and the definition I was taught in school:
“any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods”.
Clearly that is not what Mamdami and others are advocating and they should use a different term. Social Democrats
/social democracy are terms used in many countries for what these people are advocating — a mostly capitalist system but with a robust welfare state. That is the system used by Scandinavian countries. Words matter!
Well, I'm almost 70 and when it comes to Democratic Socialism, I say, don't threaten me with a good time. Bring it on. So my script for Democratic "centrists"--which in Minnesota seems to be another way of describing old cranky "liberals" who spend too much time on Facebook and non-MAGA Republicans--would be to lead with "We both agree that Donald Trump is a catastrophe and our government should make our lives better."
Don't waste a lot of breath on how you don't agree with everything some young DSA candidate says--those are such weasel words.
Also, in my experience, "centrist" Dems seem to come with a WHOLE LOT of unprocessed racism, especially when it comes to Black Americans. "Centrist" Dems are also not very appealing to The Youngs, precisely because Centrist Dems have been mostly useless and uninspiring my whole life. I am SO ready for change, but it looks like I will be stuck with Useless Centrist Dem Incarnate Amy Klobuchar as my governor for the next four years. Shoot me now.
How can you discuss 'socialism' in the U.S. without mentioning the U.S. Social Security Administration? That's socialism right there - it's not that complicated.
The VA is the only other completely socialized US system I can think of — i.e. a program entirely run by the government. It owns the hospital and runs them. Medicare payment is “socialized” but the delivery of Medicare services is not. The UK NHS is a fully socialized medical system — the government owns and runs the NHS hospitals and pays the bills.
What the Republicans are depending on is the essential political ignorance of the average American voter. Most voters do not follow politics and political positions closely. Many are confused by politics but will not make an effort to clarify their understanding. This situation makes it easy for Republicans to confuse issues with catchy slogans and simple (mostly unworkable) solutions.
You're onto something with centrist Dems being bad at electoral politics. They might have been good at it once but not anymore.
They ran on neoliberalism and an aversion to identity realism for a long time. But they've become as bankrupt of ideas as the republicans with their search for marginal voting unicorns. They think those unicorns will come out to vote if they shoot progressivism in the head. Like Trump they are stuck in a time so long ago children born then are becoming grandparents.
Republicans have one old idea that's been around since Herbert Hoover and one new dream that's been around since the 70s.
Their old idea is tax cuts. They're more delusional than the Bolsheviks because the Bolshies failed so badly they're not around. But the republicans who believe in tax homeopathy cures everything are as dishonest as all other homeopaths convoluting themselves into lies, distortions, magic and bullying.
They new republican dream is a smaller, white suprematist nation is going to bring about a great future once they get rid of a two thirds of the people. It's a horrible vision of death camps like what we're in the Carribean sugar plantations, bringing back slave patrols and internal passports. It's a vision I'm not even sure the Assyrians would get behind and the Assyrians were all about spreading Ashur worship to all corners under the dome of heaven.
Yes those terrible, vile people have a vision at least. But what do centrists have an aversion to the realities of identity that's so strong they are thinking the white nationalists and billionaires are less upsetting to deal with. The centrists democrats would rather fight against democratic socialists than national socialists. That's pretty sad.
That's what holding onto the past so tightly they've become like Donald Trump stuck in a past so long ago that kids these days ask what's a Clinton the way he's stuck doing his arm dance that what F for effort D for style when the Village People were born.
They centrists don't have to become socialists just say hmm if our ideas don't have appeal and these people from a third tier party are what our voters want maybe let's see it might work better than anything else we've tried. It couldn't be any worse.
The Democratic Socialists in the Democratic Party surely couldn't do worse than the Reactionary Centrists in the Donkey Club.
I for one look forward to a Democratic Socialist vision of the future.
So much to rant about so little time. Thank you for your patience with this comment
I don't think people are asking why this movement is coming largely from cities that are among the largest donor populations in the United States. The Federal Government is sending militarized forces into cities, and they are costing us lots of money, and driving some of our citizens out of business, forcing us into court to recoup the money lost, and passing regulations that make it impossible to fund public resources that are essential, or regulate private businesses effectively.
I think that culture war against the cities makes Republican economics possible, and it makes Republican politics cruel, violent and fun for demagogues pounding their chests and preaching about the muscularity and manliness of the Christian faith, but watch the concentration of power and redistribution of wealth, and maybe we're allowing corporations to get dangerously close to the capture point our founders would have hated.
Adam Smith said, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” Look at who was standing behind Trump at his inauguration, and understand this is a guy who literally conspired to incite an overthrow of popular sovereignty. Maybe we need to start considering that there is a little wiggle room between supply side economics and what we demonize about socialism.
Look, you're probably right, like you pretty much always are, but I would caution against not seeing the breadth and depth of the misunderstanding of socialism and communism (they are used interchangeably and in freewheeling ways in many conversations) and the gnarly mass of internal contradictions (devoted followers of the s man they call the Prince of Peace--whose entire life and every teaching pointed to nonviolence and primary concern for those on the margins-- call peace and a desire for livelihood for all evil, or weak, and also Socialism, or maybe Communism but either way evil and weak). A global commitment to supporting efforts to stop child trafficking is, in that framework, a doorway to surrendering patental control to globalists, atheists, and, yes, Socialst-Communists. There's a reason he made that speech to that particular group. He's telling them to stop reading the stuff in red letters in their Bibles and instead read old, and stupid--if not outright disturbing-- online posts and believe him when he says he and his candidates are their solution. Mamdani had them scared. Now they think they have an opportunity. And he'll dig up Lee Atwater to create the messaging.
Paul, this article is a strawman and misleading. Yes, Trump is a liar and making his own strawman, but so are you. I am a Democrat. I vote Democrat, give money to democrat candidates and drive hundreds of miles to go knock on doors for democratic candidates. I would vote for Trump before I’d vote for Darializa Avila Chevalier. Make a full throated defense of her and all her positions in your next piece. Mamdani has done a good job. I still can’t vote for him unless he makes an unambiguous, no hedging denunciation of terrorists, specifically calling out Hamas. He can criticize Israel too, but I won’t tolerate the behavior on the left that democrats have criticized the right of for 25 - not policing their own fringe for lies, bad faith arguments, conspiracy theories and lies. You are building a strawman to defend DSA candidates and I challenge you to defend Darializa Avila Chevalier on her own merits without a strawman or without comparing her to Trump. Stand up and defend her and her positions and tell us all how it’s good for America.
I think you are right. Paul is speaking out of an intellecutal/abstract conception. Voters might embrace "socialism" but not by that name. Worse, most of the people on the progressive left whether they are scary or not embrace ideas that are...not well thought out. Worst of them are those who "demand the rich pay their fair share for Social Security." The rich do pay their fair share. They in fact pay for the enhanced benefits of those too poor to have saved enough, even with Social Security's built in guarantees against inflation and guarantee of at least enough "interest" to keep up with the overall increase in real income. This is the insurance component of Social Security. It was designed to be worker-paid by Roosevelt who had to overrule his own social security committee to keep them from making it government-paid. Roosevelt was no fool. Certainly no "shill for the rich" but he understood american politics and he may have understood "the poor" who we will always have with us. Best I can expect on this site is to be called a shill for the rich if not a crank or a liar. But crazy or badly informed people calling themselves socialists is a certain way to lose the elections, or to lose Social SEcurity if the Left somehow magically wins an election. I would love to see ab intelligent Left or honest Democrats, and I hate the insane right more than even the Left does...but I am not seeing that in the offing.
I couldn't agree more and I can forgive someone like Darializa or some of the young progressives. What I take issue with is someone like Paul who has been around the political world for a very long time making these very disingenuous arguments to fit his world view. Paul is a good man. I have been reading him for decades, but these strawman, disingenuous arguments will just lead to lost elections and more corruption like Trump. That's not an attack on a policy like taxing second homes that are valued at over $5MM where the homeowner does not live there. There are definitely some good policies that the DSA folks are asserting. Also, some that I don't agree with should be tried. If they work, I'll eat crow and if they don't work, we can put them to bed for all time and stop arguing about them. However, abolishing all police (I am not fan of police) abolishing all prisons and all borders is A)completely unworkable and B) politically radioactive. Those are also far different policies than raising luxury taxes to pay for free bus fair for the working poor or free pre-K childcare. There also need to be serious conversations about how the ultra wealthy pay taxes. To your point, they do pay social security, but maybe the cap on social security is raised - not to unlimited numbers, but perhaps to some other number. When the wealth concentration is this out of wack, there are going to need to be some creative and sometimes uncomfortable solutions, but seizing landlord properties and abolishing the police will just lead to more trump or trump acolytes.
Paul,
If you are reading this, I challenge you to defend it . Defend Cori Bush and Darializa on their own merits without comparison to other people. If you can't convince me who is not a corporatist then you have no hope of convincing the independents or the soft right. T
o anyone else reading this,
Hold Paul to a higher standard. This particular column is trash and he can do much better and, worst of all, he knows better.
Matt, so I guess I agree with you. I don't want to take on Paul or other progressives on every issue however. so I'll disagree with you a bit. I have studied the Social Security finance issue pretty carefully, so I can show you how to confirm for yourself that the cost of making Social Security solvent forever is to raise the payroll tax about two dollars per week each year until it reaches a level where the tax meets the needs of an aging population. There is a lot to be said about this, and the ultimate tax level would probably look "too high" to you until you realize what it is needed to pay for, and that after paying the higher tax the worker would be left with more money in his take home than he has today due to rising real wages over the same time. and that tax rate as cash is already tiny compared to today's wages: two dollars per week increase out of a thousand dollar per week paycheck is not going to change anyone's lifestyle. as it increases to the level ultimately needed (made bigger by recent feel-good changes in SS finance made by both democrats and republicans (stealing money from the poor to give to those who don't need it and did not pay for it. even a small "raise the cap" would turn SS into just another welfare program forcing the rich to pay for something they don't get any value out of. Roosevelt knew this and he was not a shill for the rich. He was just a smart progressive. Smart. that is what we need more of.
"Socialism" is an abstract and ambiguous term. It is an academic term of art with multiple usages. In the American sense, it is basically The New Deal. What Republicans are relying on is exploiting a vague generality like "socialism" to manipulate voters and scare them. But, really, the American public is like that old aphorism that "I don't know anything about art, but I know what I like". The public doesn't know anything about the academic and/or historical socialism, but is sure knows what it likes. And, updated New Deal policies are extremely popular. Believe it or not, the public does know what is in its best interest.
Besides, Trump/MAGA/Republicans attack socialism while implementing fasism. If given a choice between fascism and socialism, I think most people will choose socialism.
This is the definition of socialism by Merriam-Webster and the definition I was taught in school:
“any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods”.
Clearly that is not what Mamdami and others are advocating and they should use a different term. Social Democrats
/social democracy are terms used in many countries for what these people are advocating — a mostly capitalist system but with a robust welfare state. That is the system used by Scandinavian countries. Words matter!
Sadly, I'm not sure how many Americans are clear on what fascism is either.
Well, I'm almost 70 and when it comes to Democratic Socialism, I say, don't threaten me with a good time. Bring it on. So my script for Democratic "centrists"--which in Minnesota seems to be another way of describing old cranky "liberals" who spend too much time on Facebook and non-MAGA Republicans--would be to lead with "We both agree that Donald Trump is a catastrophe and our government should make our lives better."
Don't waste a lot of breath on how you don't agree with everything some young DSA candidate says--those are such weasel words.
Also, in my experience, "centrist" Dems seem to come with a WHOLE LOT of unprocessed racism, especially when it comes to Black Americans. "Centrist" Dems are also not very appealing to The Youngs, precisely because Centrist Dems have been mostly useless and uninspiring my whole life. I am SO ready for change, but it looks like I will be stuck with Useless Centrist Dem Incarnate Amy Klobuchar as my governor for the next four years. Shoot me now.
I live in the South where most Democrats are centrists. We Dems have elected a black mayor for four terms and the last vote was huge majority.
How can you discuss 'socialism' in the U.S. without mentioning the U.S. Social Security Administration? That's socialism right there - it's not that complicated.
The VA is the only other completely socialized US system I can think of — i.e. a program entirely run by the government. It owns the hospital and runs them. Medicare payment is “socialized” but the delivery of Medicare services is not. The UK NHS is a fully socialized medical system — the government owns and runs the NHS hospitals and pays the bills.
What the Republicans are depending on is the essential political ignorance of the average American voter. Most voters do not follow politics and political positions closely. Many are confused by politics but will not make an effort to clarify their understanding. This situation makes it easy for Republicans to confuse issues with catchy slogans and simple (mostly unworkable) solutions.
6/29/26 TNR: the 'Suozzi manifesto' ignores the major danger to 'capitalism' in US -- monopoly, oligarchy.
Recommended: "American Midnight".
You're onto something with centrist Dems being bad at electoral politics. They might have been good at it once but not anymore.
They ran on neoliberalism and an aversion to identity realism for a long time. But they've become as bankrupt of ideas as the republicans with their search for marginal voting unicorns. They think those unicorns will come out to vote if they shoot progressivism in the head. Like Trump they are stuck in a time so long ago children born then are becoming grandparents.
Republicans have one old idea that's been around since Herbert Hoover and one new dream that's been around since the 70s.
Their old idea is tax cuts. They're more delusional than the Bolsheviks because the Bolshies failed so badly they're not around. But the republicans who believe in tax homeopathy cures everything are as dishonest as all other homeopaths convoluting themselves into lies, distortions, magic and bullying.
They new republican dream is a smaller, white suprematist nation is going to bring about a great future once they get rid of a two thirds of the people. It's a horrible vision of death camps like what we're in the Carribean sugar plantations, bringing back slave patrols and internal passports. It's a vision I'm not even sure the Assyrians would get behind and the Assyrians were all about spreading Ashur worship to all corners under the dome of heaven.
Yes those terrible, vile people have a vision at least. But what do centrists have an aversion to the realities of identity that's so strong they are thinking the white nationalists and billionaires are less upsetting to deal with. The centrists democrats would rather fight against democratic socialists than national socialists. That's pretty sad.
That's what holding onto the past so tightly they've become like Donald Trump stuck in a past so long ago that kids these days ask what's a Clinton the way he's stuck doing his arm dance that what F for effort D for style when the Village People were born.
They centrists don't have to become socialists just say hmm if our ideas don't have appeal and these people from a third tier party are what our voters want maybe let's see it might work better than anything else we've tried. It couldn't be any worse.
The Democratic Socialists in the Democratic Party surely couldn't do worse than the Reactionary Centrists in the Donkey Club.
I for one look forward to a Democratic Socialist vision of the future.
So much to rant about so little time. Thank you for your patience with this comment
This feels like an example of no one hates the left like a leftist
I don't think people are asking why this movement is coming largely from cities that are among the largest donor populations in the United States. The Federal Government is sending militarized forces into cities, and they are costing us lots of money, and driving some of our citizens out of business, forcing us into court to recoup the money lost, and passing regulations that make it impossible to fund public resources that are essential, or regulate private businesses effectively.
I think that culture war against the cities makes Republican economics possible, and it makes Republican politics cruel, violent and fun for demagogues pounding their chests and preaching about the muscularity and manliness of the Christian faith, but watch the concentration of power and redistribution of wealth, and maybe we're allowing corporations to get dangerously close to the capture point our founders would have hated.
Adam Smith said, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” Look at who was standing behind Trump at his inauguration, and understand this is a guy who literally conspired to incite an overthrow of popular sovereignty. Maybe we need to start considering that there is a little wiggle room between supply side economics and what we demonize about socialism.
Look, you're probably right, like you pretty much always are, but I would caution against not seeing the breadth and depth of the misunderstanding of socialism and communism (they are used interchangeably and in freewheeling ways in many conversations) and the gnarly mass of internal contradictions (devoted followers of the s man they call the Prince of Peace--whose entire life and every teaching pointed to nonviolence and primary concern for those on the margins-- call peace and a desire for livelihood for all evil, or weak, and also Socialism, or maybe Communism but either way evil and weak). A global commitment to supporting efforts to stop child trafficking is, in that framework, a doorway to surrendering patental control to globalists, atheists, and, yes, Socialst-Communists. There's a reason he made that speech to that particular group. He's telling them to stop reading the stuff in red letters in their Bibles and instead read old, and stupid--if not outright disturbing-- online posts and believe him when he says he and his candidates are their solution. Mamdani had them scared. Now they think they have an opportunity. And he'll dig up Lee Atwater to create the messaging.
Socialism is practiced well but poorly understood.
Paul, this article is a strawman and misleading. Yes, Trump is a liar and making his own strawman, but so are you. I am a Democrat. I vote Democrat, give money to democrat candidates and drive hundreds of miles to go knock on doors for democratic candidates. I would vote for Trump before I’d vote for Darializa Avila Chevalier. Make a full throated defense of her and all her positions in your next piece. Mamdani has done a good job. I still can’t vote for him unless he makes an unambiguous, no hedging denunciation of terrorists, specifically calling out Hamas. He can criticize Israel too, but I won’t tolerate the behavior on the left that democrats have criticized the right of for 25 - not policing their own fringe for lies, bad faith arguments, conspiracy theories and lies. You are building a strawman to defend DSA candidates and I challenge you to defend Darializa Avila Chevalier on her own merits without a strawman or without comparing her to Trump. Stand up and defend her and her positions and tell us all how it’s good for America.
Matt
I think you are right. Paul is speaking out of an intellecutal/abstract conception. Voters might embrace "socialism" but not by that name. Worse, most of the people on the progressive left whether they are scary or not embrace ideas that are...not well thought out. Worst of them are those who "demand the rich pay their fair share for Social Security." The rich do pay their fair share. They in fact pay for the enhanced benefits of those too poor to have saved enough, even with Social Security's built in guarantees against inflation and guarantee of at least enough "interest" to keep up with the overall increase in real income. This is the insurance component of Social Security. It was designed to be worker-paid by Roosevelt who had to overrule his own social security committee to keep them from making it government-paid. Roosevelt was no fool. Certainly no "shill for the rich" but he understood american politics and he may have understood "the poor" who we will always have with us. Best I can expect on this site is to be called a shill for the rich if not a crank or a liar. But crazy or badly informed people calling themselves socialists is a certain way to lose the elections, or to lose Social SEcurity if the Left somehow magically wins an election. I would love to see ab intelligent Left or honest Democrats, and I hate the insane right more than even the Left does...but I am not seeing that in the offing.
Dale,
I couldn't agree more and I can forgive someone like Darializa or some of the young progressives. What I take issue with is someone like Paul who has been around the political world for a very long time making these very disingenuous arguments to fit his world view. Paul is a good man. I have been reading him for decades, but these strawman, disingenuous arguments will just lead to lost elections and more corruption like Trump. That's not an attack on a policy like taxing second homes that are valued at over $5MM where the homeowner does not live there. There are definitely some good policies that the DSA folks are asserting. Also, some that I don't agree with should be tried. If they work, I'll eat crow and if they don't work, we can put them to bed for all time and stop arguing about them. However, abolishing all police (I am not fan of police) abolishing all prisons and all borders is A)completely unworkable and B) politically radioactive. Those are also far different policies than raising luxury taxes to pay for free bus fair for the working poor or free pre-K childcare. There also need to be serious conversations about how the ultra wealthy pay taxes. To your point, they do pay social security, but maybe the cap on social security is raised - not to unlimited numbers, but perhaps to some other number. When the wealth concentration is this out of wack, there are going to need to be some creative and sometimes uncomfortable solutions, but seizing landlord properties and abolishing the police will just lead to more trump or trump acolytes.
Paul,
If you are reading this, I challenge you to defend it . Defend Cori Bush and Darializa on their own merits without comparison to other people. If you can't convince me who is not a corporatist then you have no hope of convincing the independents or the soft right. T
o anyone else reading this,
Hold Paul to a higher standard. This particular column is trash and he can do much better and, worst of all, he knows better.
Matt, so I guess I agree with you. I don't want to take on Paul or other progressives on every issue however. so I'll disagree with you a bit. I have studied the Social Security finance issue pretty carefully, so I can show you how to confirm for yourself that the cost of making Social Security solvent forever is to raise the payroll tax about two dollars per week each year until it reaches a level where the tax meets the needs of an aging population. There is a lot to be said about this, and the ultimate tax level would probably look "too high" to you until you realize what it is needed to pay for, and that after paying the higher tax the worker would be left with more money in his take home than he has today due to rising real wages over the same time. and that tax rate as cash is already tiny compared to today's wages: two dollars per week increase out of a thousand dollar per week paycheck is not going to change anyone's lifestyle. as it increases to the level ultimately needed (made bigger by recent feel-good changes in SS finance made by both democrats and republicans (stealing money from the poor to give to those who don't need it and did not pay for it. even a small "raise the cap" would turn SS into just another welfare program forcing the rich to pay for something they don't get any value out of. Roosevelt knew this and he was not a shill for the rich. He was just a smart progressive. Smart. that is what we need more of.