Hi Justin,
Thank you so much for your thoughtful reply. When this piece got curated to the politics page, I wondered if any actual socialists would respond. My intent certainly wasn’t to disappear you out of existence or to leave you out of the discussion but this piece, as I hope is clear from context, is specifically directed at Democrats. I agree that AOC and Bernie are New Deal liberals and not socialists — at least not by the DSA’s definition, that, like yours, strives for the eventual elimination of capitalism in favor of social ownership. If that is one’s goal than the rehabilitation of the term is important. I’m, however, more interested in threading the needle with accurate definitions to increase belief and participation in civic action which I think gets eroded by a lack of clarity in political meaning and intent. For example, Bernie’s speech last week was a bit confounding to me as he introduced it as a defense of democratic socialism and proceeded to make one of the most eloquent defenses of New Deal liberalism I’ve ever heard. I don’t think the conflation is helpful because Bernie, upon questioning, would have a hard time explaining why he’s a socialist that isn’t advocating for the ultimate public ownership of industry (as he has).
I also am not terribly excited by the DSA’s ballooning membership but that’s because I believe in the mixed economy and social spending embraced by New Keneysians and New Deal Democrats. Since quite literally all prominent Democrats believe in the importance of a mixed economy, there’s a reason I’m advocating Democrats not use that term (or the term capitalist, for that matter) to describe their economic philosophy. If civic participation requires an educated, engaged electorate, we should never be afraid to seek and communicate accurate definitions of what we actually believe. Liberal democracy requires truth and honesty to survive and flourish.
For these Democrats who do call themselves democratic socialists, usage does seem to be clearly connected to tribal affiliation — a shorthand they use to define themselves as anti-establishment, anti-incrementalist Democrats as opposed to those who have been in control of the party since 1992 and the rise of Bill Clinton’s Democratic Leadership Council. I think there’s a significant appetite in the electorate for anti-establishment branding in this election cycle as evidenced by Buttigieg’s foreign policy speech last week — which bore no significant differences from Obama’s foreign policy agenda in 2016. Buttigieg has released no policy proposals but is clearly positioning himself as the voice of a new perspective so presenting these views as different gives him cachet when it probably shouldn’t.
I call this approach by Democrats “tribalist” because the term “socialism” is regularly used (performatively not ideologically) in conjunction with demonization and name-calling of the opposition and a zealous presentation of other Democratic factions as either ignorant or morally repugnant and therefore unworthy of outreach and persuasion. I’ve seen demonization used to justify outright lies or significant deceptions as a foundational requirement of political revolution. If we want to strengthen liberal democracy and the equal distribution of political power to all citizens, it is our obligation to work to convince and not manipulate the public. The distinction between these two approaches is of critical importance and how we bring social justice matters immensely if we’re looking for both success and lasting change. This is not to single out Sirotites (a term I admittedly just made up) as this tribalism is present from incrementalists as well. The treatment of Peter Daou on Twitter by a specific segment of 2016 Clinton supporters has been enormously unfair and highly disappointing.
This isn’t to say that I don’t appreciate the efforts of the DSA in their graduated approach. For now, I think a coalition makes a ton of sense as your first steps and most Democrats’ ultimate destination are very similar. I believe liberal democracy requires coalition building if one views the equal distribution of political power as a fundamental underpinning of our social contract as I do.
There can be nuance in how one approaches politics. I embrace that as I embrace with admiration and wonder the complexity in many things. We can differ on the goal being the equal distribution of economic power without practically impacting our actions today. I could easily see working with actual socialists on a Justice Democrats’ campaign, for example. I think, for example, that AOC is a parrhesiastes and one of the most powerful voices in Congress with outstanding policy goals incredibly congruent with my own. I’m fairly certain you and I would agree on the breadth and depth of injustice present in America today. We just don’t fully align on how to fix it.
As I hope comes across, I try very hard to not be tribal but instead to be thoughtful about and hopefully, clear in my articulation of what I believe. Unlike most socialists, I believe in the need for nation-states and see the task in front of us as the redefinition of patriotism to create an America that lives up to principals like justice, liberty, and true political equality. I’m glad to have you as an ally in that.
Again, thanks so much for reaching out with a desire for dialog. Happy to continue the conversation if you like.