Why reading primary sources, judging policies by their results, and thinking carefully about the relationship between freedom, virtue, and government matters more than political labels.
[A response to a friend about the Democratic Socialists of America]
I wasn’t arguing that the DSA’s policies, or the views of its national leadership, represent the majority of Americans. They clearly do not. My point was much narrower: many people, including Mr. Connelly and perhaps yourself, have come to believe that the DSA is simply an American version of Scandinavian-style social democracy. That was the claim my blog post examined, and found severely inadequate. (I hope you read that.)
After reading the DSA’s own platform, caucus documents, and statements from its leaders, I concluded that description is seriously mistaken. The recent interview with DSA national co-chair Megan Romer only reinforced that conclusion. She openly supported abolishing the Senate and prisons, replacing major elements of our current constitutional structure, eliminating immigration restrictions, dramatically reducing the Pentagon, and moving large sectors of the economy into public ownership.
Those aren’t Republican caricatures of the DSA. They are positions affirmed by the organization’s own national leadership.
It’s true that individual DSA-endorsed candidates often campaign on more popular proposals such as universal healthcare, rent regulation, or expanded labor protections rather than the organization’s full long-term vision. But political movements frequently emphasize their most politically palatable policies first.
To understand a movement honestly, we should consider both what its candidates campaign on and what the organization itself says it ultimately wants.
Christians can certainly debate the merits of healthcare, labor law, housing affordability, and the proper role of government. Those are legitimate policy discussions.
But good intentions are not enough. Public policy should also be judged by its results. Rent control, for example, may help some existing tenants in the short run, but it has repeatedly been shown to discourage new housing construction, reduce investment in existing properties, shrink the supply of rental housing, and increase prices in the uncontrolled market. That is why economists across much of the political spectrum have remained skeptical of it.
The same principle applies to labor and immigration. Labor unions rightly oppose the exploitation of immigrant workers, but many have also criticized guest-worker programs and illegal immigration when they are used to suppress wages, replace domestic workers, or provide employers with artificially cheap labor. A genuinely pro-worker immigration policy should protect both immigrant workers and the wages and opportunities of American workers.
You’ve spoken several times about the importance of remaining balanced in our political judgments. I agree. But balance does not require us to minimize what a movement actually says about itself.
When an organization’s national leadership advocates abolishing or fundamentally restructuring constitutional institutions, eliminating borders and prisons, and replacing much of the private economy with public ownership, I think the balanced conclusion is simply to acknowledge that today’s DSA is advocating something far beyond a Scandinavian-style welfare state.
If the Democratic Party is politically wise, it will clearly distance itself from the DSA’s platform, and, when appropriate, from those within its own ranks who openly embrace it. Whether it will do so remains an open question.
Too many Democrats appear to agree with significant portions of the DSA’s agenda, even if they stop short of endorsing its more revolutionary objectives.
More broadly, I think many of our political disagreements ultimately come down to competing visions of the proper relationship between the individual, the state, the market, and the moral order.
My own view is that the healthiest society seeks a balance between excessive government power and social fragmentation. A free market, operating within a framework of moral virtue, the rule of law, and strong mediating institutions such as families, churches, and voluntary associations, has produced greater human flourishing than any alternative yet devised.
I realize that last statement opens an entirely different conversation. At some point I’d enjoy discussing it with you. I think there is a much stronger Christian case for democratic capitalism, and I also think there are important distinctions between democratic capitalism, democratic socialism, and the various forms of socialism that often become blurred in contemporary political discussions.
I also haven’t mentioned the remarkable influence that gender ideology has gained within much of today’s Democratic Party—a position the DSA openly embraces—and across many of our major institutions, including universities, corporations, professional associations, public schools, and, regrettably, far too many mainline churches.
That, too, raises important questions about the broader ideological direction of today’s progressive movement.
***
The DSA Is Not Denmark