It was back in 1880’s Britain that liberal politician Sir William Harcourt infamously said, “We are all socialists now.” (Perhaps this would explain why today’s Britain is poorer than Mississippi — literally.) But here’s a question:
Should the Democratic Party make this pronouncement now?
And should they add, “And communism can sorta’ fly, too”?
After all, their latest golden boy, NYC Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani, has openly talked about seizing “the means of production” and abolishing private property, communist tenets both.
Hey, and it all makes sense. Liberals have long said we “should be more like Europe.” Well, making the Big Apple as poor as Britain is a start.
The Transition
It’s not quite like transitioning from a boy to a girl, which today’s Democrats also fancy possible. But it is a transition from closeted soy boy to out super soy boy. As J.T. Young, author of the recent book Unprecedented Assault: How Big Government Unleashed America’s Socialist Left, wrote Wednesday:
Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani’s New York City mayoral primary victory is the Democrats’ latest lurch toward socialism. It is hardly new or rare. Over the last decade, Democrats have in fact gone from flirting with socialism to openly courting it.
There was a time, not long ago, when Democrats avoided even being labeled “liberals.” Being so branded meant being defeated in any national election. This problem inspired former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis to climb into a tank and try to drive away from the Massachusetts stereotype.
No more. Both Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) backed Mamdani.
“Assemblymember Mamdani has demonstrated a real ability on the ground to put together a coalition of working-class New Yorkers that is strongest to lead the pack,” said Ocasio-Cortez. “We need to get very real about that.”
Very real, indeed. “Che’ chic” is all the rage in Demo-land.
Ocasio-Cortez’s endorsement reminds that the acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree. Ocasio-Cortez said that her past with the Democratic Socialists of America [DSA] “very much shaped my organizing strategy.”
“What initially drew me to [the Democratic Socialists of America] was the fact that they showed up everywhere that I showed up,” she added.
Radical Chic, Really
Of course, this may not be surprising because “Birds of a feather flock together,” and the DSA is a frighteningly radical group. Among other things, the organization wants to, its platform reads, “[a]bolish the Senate and the Electoral College.”
The DSA also endeavors to create a “new political order.” How? Through, it states, “a second constitutional convention to write the founding documents of a new socialist democracy.”
Of course, this is another way of saying, “We’ll destroy the Republic — if you give us a chance.”
That is revolutionary talk of the French Revolution, and not the Founding Fathers, variety.
Young continues recounting the transformation, making the following points:
- Sanders’ 2016 primary challenge to Hillary Clinton highlighted his democratic socialist appeal, energizing the party despite establishment resistance.
- The 2018 election of “The Squad,” including Cortez and Rashida Tlaib (both DSA members), pushed House Democrats further left.
- The 2020 Democratic primary saw most candidates adopt Sanders’ socialist-leaning platform, drawing Joe Biden leftward.
- Biden’s recruiting of Kamala Harris as VP reflected DSA priorities, aligning with the party’s shift.
- Boos greeted then-Democratic presidential candidate John Hickenlooper in 2019 for opposing socialism, showing party radicalization.
- Biden’s declining popularity (minus-15.7 percent by 2024) increased his reliance on the far Left, intensifying their influence.
- Despite calls for his 2024 exit, Cortez and Sanders remained mute, placated by Biden’s concessions. (Of course, Biden wasn’t running things, anyway; hard-left handlers were.)
Not Just the Pseudo-elites
Unfortunately, this leftward shift is not wholly astroturf. Oh, it’s true, Young writes, that the party’s “leftward move is much further than most Democrats want to publicly admit.” Yet, he also states, consider Cortez’ and Sanders’ “Fighting Oligarchy” tour. With Trump in office, it draws the largest, most enthusiastic Democratic crowds. Know also that the party’s liberal membership has risen from 25 percent to 54 percent in a generation.
Even more significantly, socialism has gained great currency among the young. Back in 2019 already, a Gallup poll found that 51 percent of Americans aged 18-29 approved of the ideology. The news gets even worse, though. As the Fraser Institute reported in 2023:
According to a 2017 poll, a majority of American millennials preferred to live in a “socialist, communist, or fascist nation than in a capitalist one.”
What’s in a Name?
Of course, as recent elections have proven, polls are far from infallible. Yet there is a reality here; it concerns branding. Most of these young people don’t really know what “socialism” is — but they like the word. It sounds “social.”
In contrast, they dislike the term “capitalism”; to young people it sounds anti-social. This perception is not surprising when considering that the term was originated by socialists. Now, do do think they conjured up the word to flatter their opposition, which they aimed to destroy?
Or do you think that maybe, just perhaps, they were manipulating language — as the Left always does — to gain advantage?
This is why we should dispense with the term “capitalism” in favor of “economic freedom,” which polls far, far better. Unfortunately, I’ve found that conservatives, ever bent on conserving “what is” even when it’s a mistake, are very much wedded to the term. But what’s in a name?
Everything when at issue is marketing — this includes marketing candidates and policies.
Of course, young people generally don’t know that “socialist,” as the Heritage Foundation wrote Wednesday, “is how communists describe themselves.” In fact, many don’t even know that communism is abhorrently bad. This problem, though, resulting from a lifetime of mis-education, propaganda, and lacking virtue, can’t be remedied overnight. But the error of using the lexicon of the Left, and thus giving the civilization destroyers a 50-yard head start in a 100-yard debate, sure can.
