The Democrats *are* the DSA
captured by a revolutionary cadre
The reflex everywhere is to democratize the party further: open primaries, more direct say, fewer bosses. I think that’s exactly backwards. A party’s biggest power is choosing its candidates, and open primaries hand that choice to a small, intense, activist electorate, which makes the party weaker rather than more accountable. The American parties are already among the structurally feeblest in the democratic world, and on purpose: single-member districts, first-past-the-post, an indivisible presidency, federalism, a two-party system half-written into statute. We built a system to keep parties weak, then act surprised when they can’t filter anyone out.
…Weaken the formal party and the vacuum fills with exactly the forces the reformers wanted to curb: the most intense money and the most activist primary voters.
The Democratic Socialists of America have a lot going for them. They are young. They are disciplined. They appeal to people who want to belong to a cause. They have Israel and its Jewish supporters (or perhaps Jews in general) as an enemy to demonize.
It is tempting to describe the Democratic Party as divided, with moderates on one side and radicals on the other. That is like saying that the Republican Party of recent years was divided between Trump supporters and the establishment. The establishment had no energy. The Republican Party was (still is) Trump supporters.
Not many Republican candidates have tried to distance themselves from Trump. Do not hold your breath waiting for Democratic candidates to distance themselves from the DSA. And even if elected officials do not label themselves as DSA, their staffs will be drawn from a pool of DSA enthusiasts.
The “divided party” narrative is pure cope. The Democratic Party is the DSA.
Traditional Democrats are finished. Their card is punched. They will be replaced, or more likely absorbed, by a Mamdani-led Democratic Socialist bureaucracy in short order.
Even if the Democrats do not win the Presidency in 2028, the DSA could still win most of its agenda. The Republican nominee could adopt the anti-AI, anti-billionaire platform and other populist economic policies. The Republican nominee could run on a foreign policy platform that regrets the war with Iran and blames Israel for it. The only elements of the DSA agenda that are certain to be opposed by the Republican nominee are open borders and defunding police.
MAGA is in no position to pursue a long-term strategy. It is a disorganized rabble in thrall to a politician with unusual strengths but no ability to follow through when an initial effort at “shock and awe” fails, as the fiascoes of DOGE and the Iran MOU illustrate.
In contrast, the DSA is a revolutionary faction. It is not dependent on any one leader. It has clear goals and the ability to stick to a long-term strategy. It is highly disciplined. It has sufficient funding sources, including sympathetic billionaires and foreign governments.
An ordinary political organization makes compromises. A revolutionary faction makes demands. An ordinary political organization will trade victories on some issues for losses on others. A revolutionary faction drives for victories everywhere. An ordinary political organization, once it is in power, accepts that eventually it will no longer be in power. A revolutionary faction, once it is in power, resorts to violence and terror to remain there.
It is likely that DSA’s revolutionary goals are not shared by most Democrats, much less most Americans. But do not underestimate the effectiveness of revolutionary parties. Sometimes they win, as sheer determination and discipline overcomes minority status. The Bolsheviks won. The Nazis won. The Viet Cong won. The Islamic Revolution in Iran won.
I hope that it can’t happen here.
Have a nice day.
substacks referenced above: @
@
The DSA’s main problem is that it’s gaining power incrementally rather than all at once. They now have elected officials at all levels of government and will be building records of failure.
Democratic primary voters rejected socialism in 2016 (Bernie vs Hillary) choose the most moderate available candidate in 2020 (Biden, sad that he turned his admin over to his staffers but if primary voters wanted that there were a ton of radicals to vote for in 2020). In 2024 they were not given a primary, which proved to be a complete disaster.
"Primary voters are the problem" is cope. Primary voters are the only thing keeping the activist class from total control of the Democratic Party.
Obviously, this might not be true in Manhattan, where the activist class and the primary voters are one. But it's true if you trying to win in nationally.
There is a problem that moderate dems need to recognize that the people who run their party (the activists, staffers, NGOs, "experts") are radicals and thus they should think hard about voting for that party at all. Maybe the only solution is for these radicals to lose in the general election. But I don't think letting that class select themselves as candidates behind closed doors will improve things.
"The Republican nominee could run on a foreign policy platform that regrets the war with Iran and blames Israel for it."
God I hope so! Trump ran on a platform of not starting a war with Iran. One of MAGA's core tenets is isolationism. And yeah I think Bibi shares some blame for talking him into it.