I’ve watched with alarm the increase in the number of members and political candidates affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), whose membership has swelled from 6,000 members in 1982 to 110,000 members this year. I don’t know anybody affiliated with that party, but the positions espoused by their candidates are so extreme that they often come close to lunacy, as in the case of Darializa Avila Chevaler, likely to be elecetd a Congresswoman come fall. They favor open borders, an end to incarceration and most policing, and, to a man and woman, they are strongly anti-Israel. These stands, which come close to antisemitism, used to bar candidates from election, but now are de rigueur for DSAers.
DSA candidates are “progressive,” but in an authoritarian way, and in that respect they are no advance over classic liberals or the “mainstream” Democratic Party—if there still is one! Zohran Mamdani, the Mayor of NYC and a DSA member, has been dubbed a “kingmaker”, as the candidates he’s endorsed have won by substantial margins in the primaries. My only consolation is that these are primaries in blue states, though an apparently loony DSAer, Melat Kiros, won a House primary in Colorado a light-blue state. In all of these cases, the DSA candidate is predicted to defeat the Republican in November.
Will this invidious party spread? We already have DSAers in Congress: Rashida Tlaib and AOC, both of whom I detest. Bernie Sanders, though not a member of DSA, is affiliated with them. That’s a small number, but it is going to get larger: DSAers in Congress will at least double next year.
In a new article in The Atlantic, staff writer Jonathan Chait describes the principles and history of the DSA, both of which should scare the bejeezus out of any liberal or mainstream Democrat. Click below to read the article for free:
Some quotes;
The general idea that Democratic Party loyalists seem to have about members of the Democratic Socialists of America is that they’re a lot like Democrats, but perhaps a bit more passionate. Voters in New York City are “not afraid of the term democratic socialism,” Joy Behar recently said on The View, to applause. “Social Security is democratic socialism. Partly, unemployment insurance is. The people who pick up your garbage, the people who take the fire out at your house—all of these things are democratic socialism.”
It’s true that the DSA has areas of ideological overlap with the Democratic Party, and would at least directionally support classic Democratic policies such as a higher minimum wage, defending social spending, and opposing the Trump administration. But the DSA’s version of democratic socialism goes far beyond routine public functions such as garbage collection and Social Security (which most Republicans, not to mention Democrats, support), or even aspirational policies such as Medicare for All.
The DSA, in fact, seems to despise the Democratic Party. Darializa Avila Chevalier has called Joe Biden a “rapist” and wrote “Fuck Kamala Harris” on social media. She proceeded to be nominated for a House race in New York last week by Democratic voters who presumably do not all share those feelings. The DSA now includes a growing caucus of supporters in Congress, has mayoral candidates well positioned to win in several big cities, and has plans to throw its weight behind a yet-to-be-determined presidential candidate in 2028.
The DSA’s feelings about Democrats encompass not only the party’s leadership but also the philosophical commitments that have guided it since the New Deal: a mixed economy undergirded by democratic values. Chevalier, for instance, joined a post–October 7 celebratory rally and portrayed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a defensive response to Western “bullying.” She previously called for seizing land and the means of production and has repeatedly praised communism.
These positions are not holdovers from the idealism of youth or a bygone “woke” era. They are a by-product of the DSA’s core ideology. The DSA has become a force in Democratic Party politics even as it has grown more hostile to the party, more illiberal, and more dogmatic.
The writer and activist Michael Harrington helped found the DSA in 1982. His goal was to build a socialist movement that would eventually pull the Democratic Party toward more humane domestic and foreign policies. He believed that a commitment to freedom of speech, elections, and other democratic norms was an absolute requirement for any socialist organization. And generations of bitter experience taught Harrington and his allies that socialist organizations had failed because they allowed communists to infiltrate them and take control of their organizing structures. Its founding bylaws accordingly permitted the expulsion of members who were “under the discipline of any self-defined democratic-centralist organization,” a slightly jargonish way of describing communists.
As Chait describes, the DSA fractured after October 7, 2023 when Hamas attacked Israel. Now the organization is pretty much anti-Israel and even sides with terrorists groups (and no, its Jew hatred is based on more than Netanyahu—it’s anti-Zionism, equivalent to antisemitism):
In 2025, the group’s convention voted to officially remove its founding language allowing for the expulsion of members who worked for communist cells, and added a provision calling the Palestinian “right to resistance” a central tenet of the DSA. Having dismantled the guardrails that Harrington built to exclude communists, the group established new guardrails to exclude anybody opposed to Israel’s destruction. “Michael Harrington’s DSA is dead,” a dispatch from the proceedings gloated.
Now, Chait says, more that half of DSA members openly identify as communists, which means that they want authoritarian power (the dictatorship of the proletariat), though some like Mamdani or Tlaib disguise their antidemocratic aims well, supporting uncontroversial ideas like public health care and transportation. But that’s just the veneer:
In 2025, the group’s convention voted to officially remove its founding language allowing for the expulsion of members who worked for communist cells, and added a provision calling the Palestinian “right to resistance” a central tenet of the DSA. Having dismantled the guardrails that Harrington built to exclude communists, the group established new guardrails to exclude anybody opposed to Israel’s destruction. “Michael Harrington’s DSA is dead,” a dispatch from the proceedings gloated.
And do you know about the “dirty break”?
The DSA’s long-term strategy is to exploit the Democratic Party’s ballot access and reservoir of voters to build its following, and then, after it gains enough power, break off to form its own party, after which the husk of the old Democratic Party would wither and die. This gambit is called the “dirty break,” a term coined by a 2017 article in the left-wing magazine Jacobin.
Not all DSA officials agree on the dirty break. Some still cling to Harrington’s vision of pushing the Democrats leftward. Others favor an immediate split into a third party (a “clean break”). But as Peter Sterne, a onetime DSA member who now reports on New York politics, has written, “The DSA’s current strategy is a ‘dirty break’: gradually build up the necessary partylike infrastructure to eventually break away from the Democrats entirely, while still running candidates in Democratic primaries for now.”
In the meantime, the organization has displayed patience. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, the movement’s most valuable political asset, has moved cautiously in office and avoided dramatic policy changes, building political support that he has spent on backing DSA challenges to mainstream Democrats.
. . .Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a DSA member, recently appeared on MS NOW, a favorite network for normie liberals, where she blamed Democratic members of Congress for discord with new left-wing nominees. “You,” she said, addressing her incumbent colleagues, “are creating the antagonistic dynamic that we do not need. These are two young, talented, intelligent women that got elected against all odds, against millions of dollars. Perhaps there is something we can learn from them.”
The norm that AOC is trying to create is a ratchet that pushes the Democratic Party ever leftward. The DSA is permitted to excoriate the party, but non-socialist Democrats cannot respond in kind. Moderate Democrats are permitted to exist, at least for now, but the ideological pressure runs in one direction.
Now the last bit might be an exaggeration (I love how AOC slots herself in the group of desirables), but it doesn’t seem far from the truth. Thankfully, at present Democrats as a whole are not behind the DSA:
At the most superficial level, the DSA influx has associated Democrats with a series of kooky beliefs and statements. Although Democratic voters approve of the DSA, voters as a whole do not. A national poll found the group’s approval at 21 percent, and 48 percent disapproved. (The same poll had 36 percent approval of the Democrats.) Its specific platform components are if anything less popular. The DSA’s leadership has approved a platform, set to be ratified at its convention next month, calling for “abolishing the carceral forces of the capitalist state,” opening borders, moving to public ownership for the largest corporations, establishing a 32-hour workweek, and defunding the Pentagon.
So why should we be scared? For two reasons. First, those of us who sympathize with Israel have watched with despair as antisemitism (excuse me: “anti-Zionism”) has seeped into the mainstream Democratic Party, and that’s partly the result of the DSA. More important, the DSA is antidemocratic and antiliberal, and woe to us if they get elected. Even so-called mainstream Democrats, like Kamala “Coconut Tree” Harris, are schmoozing with Democratic Socialists, trying to inject some pro-Palestinian notes and more progressivism into their campaigns. Click, read and weep: here’s an article from the Jerusalem Post:
I don’t think Harris has a snowball’s chance in hell of even being a Presidential/VP candidate in 2028, but who knows what will happen in the next two years? After all, Democrats embraced her candidacy in the last election, and then what happened? Here’s Chait’s conclusion about the DSA, and why we should fear it:
What the DSA demands of the Democrats is not merely to advocate more generous social policies, or more cautious foreign affairs, but to welcome, or at least accept, authoritarians as their coalition partners. Democrats are likely to face the same kind of pressure that Republicans confronted with MAGA’s hostile takeover: first to ignore their allies’ sinister goals, and then to rationalize and eventually justify them.
As authoritarian elements gain strength, they become more essential to the success of a political coalition, and the price of confronting them rises. The Republican Party has long since passed the point of no return. The easiest time to draw clear moral lines against the encroachment of illiberalism within one’s own camp is at the beginning.
Never will I vote for one of these jokers.
h/t Callum
I read this yesterday too. Good article.
I turned my back on the DSA ever since their demonstrations on 8-Oct-2023.
I don’t know if you linked to their platform; but here it is. Can you say (authoritarian) pie in the sky?
Thanks for the link, Jim.
It seems that I’ve heard this song before. I’d be interested to hear a DSA leader explain how Democratic Socialism is different than Communism. In the old days Democratic Socialists used to be at pains to separate themselves from the Communists. Now I think they are just avoiding the label.
Isn’t that quote a verse from The Internationale? LOL
Thanks for the link.
I don’t know if you linked to their platform; but here it is.
😲😲😲
Can you say (authoritarian) pie in the sky?
Yeah, in at least a dozen languages (and I’m afraid that’s not enough).
But if there are no police, no military, and no “carceral state,” then how would any authoritarianism be implemented and maintained? To me it just sounds like anarchism.
The trend within the DSA resembles that of the German party “The LEft.” There, too, more and more young identity-politics activists and supporters of authoritarian left-wing structures are gaining influence. The party’s chairman no longer sees any difference between the conservative CDU and fascists. Members support militant Palestinians as freedom fighters and spread anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic sentiments. Mao, Stalin, and Honecker are praised.
Completely flat learning curve, apparently. Or perhaps more likely, they yearn for an authoritarian dystopia. As long as they are in charge.
Yeah, it’s what I said a week ago.
It’s as if they want to make up for the other crazies (BSW) splitting off in 2024.
The DSA is the MAGA of the left, and, as I see it, MAGA was successful against the mainstream Republican party for the same reason that the DSA is gaining ground now: the simplicity of its marketing. There are good guys and bad guys. The good guys are us, and the bad guys are everyone who stands in our way, but ESPECIALLY this small identifiable group that we can point to and who does not have the numbers to outvote us. Immigrants, the billionaires, Jews, globalists. The biggest difference that I see in the marketing is that, with the DSA, the acolytes are the victims (of corrupt businessmen and American imperialism), but they see themselves as fighting for an even worse off group. They see themselves as the heroes of the whatever group they label an underdog. For MAGA, the acolytes were the victims (of The Swamp and immigrant invaders), but they see themselves fighting for the country. For the DSA, America is the problem with America and for MAGA, those anti-American traitors are the problem. For this reason, I see any national fight between MAGA and DSA as one that MAGA will win. If someone in between has to choose between a group that wraps itself in the flag or one that uses it as a napkin, the napkin wiper won’t win.
Of course, where does this lead the more nuanced, more intelligent Democratic and Republican parties? It leads to a need for simple messaging. No more white papers. No more grey. No more Yes Buts. People are tuning them out for the easy answer. It sucks but that’s what we’ve got. And I know some of these people. They want to be on “the right side of history”. So the mainstream political parties have to start messaging that is simple and paints THEIR OWN fringe (Dems have to fight the DSA, not MAGA) as the wrong side of history. The GOP has to fight MAGA. If the Dems do it, then the Dems are siding with the DSA, and that lets the DSA cancer grow. And since the goal of a cancer is the kill the host, as the GOP is learning more every day, this does the Dems no favors.
I strongly disagree with you analysis. The Dems are unpopular not because their messaging is too complicated. It’s the messages themselves, their content, that are the problem. There never was a political majority for Biden’s immigration policy. Transgender policy is another area where the Democratic Party is just out of touch with what Americans want. What’s the Dems education policy? Reduce educational standards so that measured educational achievement is less unequal + failing to provide proper oversight of public university allowing them to be taken over by left-wing activists professors and administrators. And I could continue with other issues, but the bottom line is that the Democratic Party is unpopular because of the issue positions it has recently taken (last 10 years), and not because voters are unsophisticated rubes who don’t know what is good for themselves.
I recommend you read this:
Ruy Teixeira: Seven Principles for a 21st Century Left. Jan 29, 2026
Their mission, should they choose to accept it.
Freely available at the Substack The Liberal Patriot
Excerpt:
the left has lost touch with baseline realities of how to reach ordinary working-class voters, what policies could actually deliver what these voters want, and what kind of politics accords with these voters’ common sense rather than the biases of their own base. The left needs to course-correct toward realism to give themselves a serious chance of decisively defeating right populism and achieving the good society they claim they are committed to.
Your are conflating Democratic (policy) support in a general election with support in a primary. I thought that I was clearly talking about the Dem/GOP parties being taken over by their fringe wing and THEN the electorate being forced to choose between MAGA and DSA. The things that you dislike about Democratic speechifying are ones that I agree with. But those are the things that the DSA is championing… AND WINNING WITH (this year). So will the DSA lose against MAGA? Yes, I think so. But why has the DSA been winning against normal Dems in primaries? I think that it’s the simple message that resonates with a passionate, easily manipulated by righteousness base (which are low turnout elections in NYC where I live. My district’s dem primary had fewer than 40,000 voters).
Some news on the other side. In the Colorado Democratic primary, Phil Weiser, the Attorney General, won his race for the Democratic nomination for Governor. He is a Zionist, descendant of Holocaust survivors.
It’s the time-honoured tactic of entryism. The further left and the more radical an activist is, the more effort and energy they put into their activism. And a favourite tactic is to join an existing organisation, and gain influence and leadership in it by hard work, then subvert it by dragging it leftwards. Ditto dozens of other organisations.
In contrast, centrist-minded people don’t put in the time and effort, while right-wing people tend to devote their energies to founding businesses and getting rich.
Yes Coel, that’s the dynamic.
Until the Dems ran into a ditch in the last ten years I was Their Guy: I even volunteered for Hillary.
Things change.
People who get rich (I’m told) are able to adapt with the changing ecosystem. Like evolution really.
best regards,
D.A.
NYC
The DSA represents an extreme but not unexpected reaction against the American Experiment (or better termed the North American Experiment), which began in colonial times, before the Declaration of Independence was written. From the beginning of the settlement of our continent, there has been an emphasis on individualism and “what’s in it for me” rather than “what can I do to make my fellow inhabitants’ lives better”. The hustler outlook was pervasive at the time of the Revolutionary War, and was one of the reasons for the war. The elites kept the populace somewhat satisfied with our founding myths and (grudgingly adopted) improved workplace conditions, but over time inequality increased and is now at historically dysfunctional levels. We’ve done this to ourselves because of our unrelenting cupidity and poor leadership. I’ll end with a quote from H. L. Mencken, from 1920:
As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
Reading Piketty convinced me that there is an inexorable mechanism (almost an economic law) in which the hustler mindset causes both (1) improved lives for our fellow inhabitants’ (over the lives of say ~all Americans in 1760) and (2) increased inequality. It would be interesting to ask DSA members what they would do about that law if they were projected back to the pre-revolutionary colonies. Would they allow hustler capitalism to flourish so that 250 years later there are 250x as many Americans, mostly living vastly better lives, with Musk-level wealth for a few, while also leaving a tiny percentage living in Dickensian poverty? Or would they freeze economic life at 1760 conditions? In Piketty’s historical analysis, the only mechanism that can meaningfully reduce inequality is destruction on the scale of the two great wars of the early 20th century (which destroy capital to a much greater extent than they damage labour). My concern is that in their zeal to address inequality many DSA members in the US (and many members of the NDP in my country) would choose destruction over hustle. But perhaps that’s not fair, and I might be wrong.
Bertrand Russell, among others, suggested that this delight in destruction flowed through “Marxism” (and its relatives) directly from the personality of Karl Marx. Maybe Marx’s personality reflected his chronic hemorrhoids. Unfortunate, inasmuch as Friedrich Engels, a devotee of Pilsner beer, was the more genial.
Is it really true that levels of inequality are at historically high and dysfunctional levels? Is there good data on this?
In asking that, I don’t think that a few people having highly-valuable share holdings in companies that they’ve created is a damaging form of inequality. More important measures would be things like money spent per year or power wielded.
NBER WORKING PAPER
Wealth Inequality in the United States Since 1913: Evidence from Capitalized Income Tax Data
Emmanuel Saez & Gabriel Zucman
http://www.nber.org/papers/w20625
Also, the Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) website has a wealth of information.
I would recommend:
Lane Kenworthy: Is Inequality the Problem? Oxford UP, Oct 2025, 176 pages
Publisher’s description:
Sociologist Lane Kenworthy draws from a vast trove of research on the rich democracies to argue that while inequality is normatively a problem and we should therefore work to reduce it, the evidence from wealthier countries does not show that income inequality has contributed much at all to the other social ills it is associated with, like poor health outcomes. The effects vary from society to society, but typically the key contributors to negative trends like this one are factors other than inequality. Instead of trying to improve living standards, democracy, opportunity, health, and happiness indirectly via reduction in income inequality or wealth inequality, policy makers are more likely to make progress by pursuing these goals directly.
Musa al-Gharbi: On Redistribution. March 4, 2026
Symbolic Capitalists love to take from the rich. We’re less reliable about giving to others. It’s a significant social problem.
Freely available at the author’s Substack
Excerpts:
symbolic capitalists have two sets of sincere but incompatible drives.
On the one hand, the symbolic professions tend to define themselves in terms of altruism and the common good. We’re the Americans most likely to self-identify as feminists, antiracists, environmentalists, or allies to LGBTQ people. Ideologically, we overwhelmingly self-identify as liberal, left or progressive. Politically, we’re tightly aligned with the Democratic Party. We’re the slice of society that most intensely focuses on disparities and inequality. When we say that we want the poor to be uplifted and the marginalized to live lives of dignity and inclusion, we’re not lying – this is a sincere set of commitments we have. But they’re not our only set of commitments.
Most of us also sincerely desire to be elites. We think our preferences and priorities should count for more – should carry more weight, should be deferred to – over the folks checking us out at the grocery store. We think we should have a much higher standard of living than the folks who deliver our packages every day. And we want our children to reproduce our social position or to do even better than us. This set of commitments is also quite sincere. As [my book] We Have Never Been Woke [Princeton UP, 2025] illustrates at length, the symbolic professions and the folks who are folded into them tend to be brutally competitive, to the point where social justice advocacy itself becomes another front in aggressive struggles over status, resources and opportunities.
Please keep your comments shorter; this exceeds the maximum recommended length.
I don’t even like the term “inequality”, as it implies that income equality is the goal, when it isn’t (or shouldn’t be). There is no reason that a doctor should make as much as a taxi driver. This is not to disparage the taxi driver, but the skill and schooling needed to drive a taxi and the value-add to society of that taxi pale in comparison to the doctor.
The real metric should be quality of life. Can one be comfortable driving a taxi? Can the taxi driver’s family access healthcare, schooling, etc? Is the quality of life of the lowest income 25% as good as, worse than, or better than that same 25% from _____ years ago? Is it improving? Comparing that income to a billionaire’s and saying “100 years ago, the billionaire of today would only be worth $100 million” is irrational. It’s just economic scapegoating under the guise of “punching up.”
That seems pretty reasonable to me Jon.
best,
D.A.
NYC
Calling DSAers Democrats is like calling magas Republicans.
Well they’re the same, Robb.
I see little difference between MAGA honking shouters and Mandami lovers here. They love the charisma of the Big Guy, the big guys are sexy for sure.
I see it as a big problem actually. I guess PCC(E) does also.
best,
D.A.
NYC (in an eff’d but intensely wonderful city)
It appears to me that the DSA candidates closely resemble the Democrats that they run against. In NY, for example, all then Democratic candidates were running on platforms of housing, affordability, healthcare, anti-Trumpism, etc. There did not seem to be a micrometer of distance between them.
Where they were different was the extremity of the anti-Israel sentiments. Anyone formerly an Israel supporter, only later converted to the cause, was pilloried. That was also the case in CA and CO. There were a few notable exceptions, but that was the major point. So Jews whose Jewish identity is important to them meat be excused for feeling that they can no longer support a party that makes anti-Semitic part of their platform in many cases.
The SPECIFIC and WILD antisemitism has left me… aghast Starwolf.
Didn’t see that f’er coming and I’m not alone in this.
So… what to do? I give a bunch of Money to Israel just because I can and I see your country as the edge of civilization.
best,
D.A.
NYC🗽
https://x.com/DavidandersonJd
The whirring sound we hear is Michael Harrington (and maybe Hal Draper too) spinning in their graves. But permit me to suggest a slightly different view. Maybe poseurs like Chevalier and the other DSA windbags are performing the same social function that Bill Ayers/Bernardine Dohrn & Co. performed half a century ago: they are insuring the Republican Party’s national dominance. That can only be assessed as good or bad in relation to its alternative, and its real alternative seems to be getting steadily trickier.
while I disagree with much of the sentiments of the article on DSA, we can certainly agree to disagree. I see the DSA as a reaction to the neoliberal policies followed by both parties for many years. But please please please do not conflate anti-zionism with anti-semitism. After all there are many anti-zionist Jews and hating what the Israeli government is doing in Palestine has nothing to do with being an anti-semite.
I used to be a long time follower of this website, mostly for Hili and the ducks but this is my first time responding with a comment.
Well, please do not tell me what to think with a triple please; I have explained before why I see anti-sionism with antisemitism. And just because some Jews oppose the existence of a Jewish sovereign state (I presume you do, too) does not mean it is not antisemitic. Further, if you think there should be a Palestinian state based on heritage but oppose a Jewish state, you are being a hypocrite (I am not calling you one, but drawing a parallel.
I would urge you to read what well known Jewish organizations have said about this, including the ADL:
And listen to the Munk debate including Douglas Murray and Natasha Hausdorff, paticularly the second link below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwxFiWieMrE
The way I see it is that antisemitism is the view that Jews are alien interlopers from the Middle East who should get the hell out of Europe and North America, while antizionism holds that Jews are alien interlopers from Europe and North America who should get the hell out of the Middle East.
Good reposte, PCC(E).
I used to think there was daylight between criticism of the policies of democratic Israel (because apparently foreigners have this right….)..and antisemitism. but its just all beheading Jews.
best,
D.A.
NYC🗽
Anti-Zionism isn’t necessarily antisemitism, but the present push of anti-Zionism is smuggling in an alarming degree of antisemitism. Observed both ideologically and materially in spiking violence against Jews.
institutions, orgs, pundits are pouncing on the moment when the Israeli government disapproval is peaking. That is fair game, but it goes beyond in far too many mainstream contexts where these entities know they can exploit a quasi-literate, historically ignorant, virally rewired brains and ignore the many expressions of Zionism and history of the conflict to promote a simplified good vs evil narrative. If you’ve come
To believe Zionism means only the displacement of Palestinians than you’ve probably been swept up in this.
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
German Democratic Republic
Democratic Republic of Congo
Democratic Socialists of America
Hmm, I think I see a certain pattern there… 🤔
Yes. It’s bad.
And, as I’ve said before, Jews, especially, need to rethink the company they keep. They need to walk away from these far left “social justice” groups—and so many other institutions—that were once their natural homes. They should absolutely not abandon their long-held beliefs in fairness, equality of opportunity, and merit, nor should they be forced to abandon Israel as the price to pay for acceptance, which is what the far left—socialist and others—demands.
I will cast my votes very carefully.
Me also Norman.
best
D.A.
NYC 🗽
The same thing happen with SDS? In 1962, the parent organization (LID) forced them to put an anti-Communist membership clause in their founding document but in 1965 that was over-turned.
Ironically, Michael Harrington was the liaison between the League for Industrial Democracy (LID) and SDS and played a central role in the clash over the anti-communist membership clause.
“Voters in New York City are “not afraid of the term democratic socialism,” Joy Behar recently said on The View, to applause.”
They evidently aren’t afraid of the term National Socialism either.
Oct 8th demo in Times Square: “River To Sea” changed my life and the dynamics of what I do WAY more than 9/11. And consider I worked in the World Trade Center until close to its demise. I live in South Manhattan.
That people – young people – who endorse all that horror would be voted into office…… pains me deeply.
D.A.
NYC🗽
Yes, many people in the DSA are what you say, but their influence is a what I would deem a “soft” one, unlike the influence of the overtly fascist/religious traditionalist in the MAGA Republican party.
It could sound as “they also are odious”, but the argument is: DSA are annoying but have some good points that could be worked with (power of corporations, public option in healthcare) while the other side has a clear case of “We are going to turn the USA into a fascist state.”