Opinion | Democrats just might find democratic socialism refreshing

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Surprise wins by young democratic socialists in New York City’s mayoral primary over an established politician and, more recently, a Minneapolis DFL mayoral endorsement over a two-term incumbent, have the political world grappling to measure the growing appeal of two relative unknowns.

As some voters search to understand democratic socialism, others can’t get past “socialism” in a label and condemn it as “radical” and “extreme.” Worse, too many harbor senseless prejudice about the faith and ethnicity of the recent winning candidates.

But in a climate of political turbulence and fading trust in America’s two major parties, self-described democratic socialists are demonstrating renewed acceptance of progressive populism, especially among younger voters, reminiscent of the 20th-century Midwest with North Dakota’s Non-Partisan League, Minnesota’s Farmer-Laborites (influenced by the NPL) and Wisconsin’s La Follette Progressives.

Those movements were anti-monopoly, pro-labor, supportive of veterans and improved living conditions. North Dakota’s NPL even created a state bank and state mill and elevator to leverage farmer interests vs. Minneapolis millers. All of it had broad popular appeal through the years of war and depression.

Nationally, Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society advanced much what was promoted by “progressives” of their era and by today’s democratic socialists. Out of the New Deal came Social Security, the Public Works Administration and Conservation Corps, and consumer protection in securities and banking. The Great Society added Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and civil rights in voting and employment.

There’s growing angst over President Donald Trump’s recently signed law that’s seen as a bonus for the rich at the trillion-dollar expense of those on Medicaid and food stamps. Most Americans say they feel left behind in an unbalanced economy.

Still, there’s negative reaction to “socialism” and its revolutionary and authoritarian history, something critics are wont to embellish and demonize. But in fact, socialism in some form has long co-existed with American capitalism. The mentioned Social Security, welfare programs and consumer protections are cases, along with the military, police and other first responders, roads and bridges, public education and hospitals, and public parks, even golf courses. All of it socialistic and popular.

Every developed country on earth except the U.S. has government-run, socialistic (and very popular) health systems, some providing cradle-to-grave support (with everything covered there’s no denial of health claims, a despised practice in private insurance). Coverage is more inclusive and much less expensive than private insurance; Scandinavian socialism helps those countries rank as the world’s “happiest.”

In 1989, Michael Harrington in “Socialism: Past and Future” laid the foundation for the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which now has grown with several local chapters. One is in Minneapolis, where supporters include City Council members and, now, a DFL-endorsed mayoral candidate and current state senator, Omar Fateh.

Nationally, democratic socialists include former presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. In the U.S. House there’s New York’s Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Michigan’s Rep. Rashida Tlaib. (They’ve formed an informal six-member caucus, “The Squad,” that includes Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar.)

The published visions of candidates Zohran Mamdani in New York and Omar Fateh in Minneapolis incorporate these elements, and they’ve drawn impressive support in a relatively short time.

Fateh emphasizes more timely police reforms, as detailed by federal and state authorities. Contrary to detractors, he does not support defunding police, but he does support appropriate responses to 911 calls rather than heavily relying on armed cops.

Embedded in his calls for access to affordable housing, Fateh proposes “rent stabilization,” something that’s proved difficult and controversial in other cities, including St. Paul. In all, Fateh’s platform is in sync with positions long held by progressives in a deep blue city.

The advent and eventual rise of democratic socialism can be tied to weakening of the “liberal consensus” in decades following the New Deal. In the 1970s it began to give way to an ideological shift toward “neoliberalism” that boasts efficiency of free markets to allocate wealth while promoting minimal state intervention in economic and social affairs.

Republican President Ronald Reagan slashed many of the New Deal social programs and cut taxes for the wealthy. In his second term, President Bill Clinton moved Democrats to the center in a crass political move that saw cutbacks in social safety nets, a friendliness toward big business and even a declaration that “the era of big government is over.”

Strong headwinds from the party’s left now include democratic socialists, with special appeal to under-30 voters and minorities who’ve bolted the Dems in droves, mainly due to valid perceptions the center establishment is mainly empty talk.

Republicans have their own problem as Trump’s MAGA forces feign conservative leanings by cutting taxes for the wealthy and wildly slashing social spending, while snubbing traditional party values by growing the national debt and by creating economic uncertainty with tariff-driven trade wars.

“How well I remember a Republican Party deeply committed to balanced budgets, checks on executive power, and non-intrusive federal government,” wrote former Minnesota GOP Gov. Arne Carlson in a recent essay. “States’ rights were supreme and deficits unwelcome.”

While the strength of democratic socialism will be tested in upcoming local elections, it seems clear that it and the those on the Democratic Party’s left represent a credible and growing force. Establishment Dems scoff at the challenge, but perhaps a more constructive approach would be to “expand the tent” and join forces with what’s obviously a serious desire by minorities and younger voters to return to the tent.

Nationally, the Democrats of the past became stronger by shedding the southern Dixiecrats and expanding their coalition by strengthening social programs of the New Deal and Great Society.

In both cases, the party then weakened as it settled into what’s seen as the status-quo (some say “mushy”) middle with a disabled compass.

A path for Republicans is less clear. That party has given the MAGA virus room to grow, through capitulation and compromised values. Today’s Grand Old Party has trouble deciding what it is.

Voters, mostly mentored by online misinformation and sophomoric yak, seem as confused as the two major parties. It’s something called cause and effect.