Why Do So Many on the Political Left Call Themselves "Democratic Socialists?"

 Why is the Label "Democratic Socialist" Popular?

Why do many progressives in the United States like to call themselves “Democratic Socialists?” Why do they insist on a political label that is suspect and even vaguely threatening to many Americans and that opens candidates up to the undeserved accusation that they may be communists?

They have not adopted the label because of a need to identify a radical political platform that is outside of the main stream of American politics. In fact, the political platform of the Democratic Socialists is well within the main stream of politics in capitalist countries or even in the United States.  A proposal like Medicare for All is hardly radical. It is nothing but the expansion of a successful, existing program to include more people. Another favorite of Democratic Socialists, the Green New Deal is nothing but a modification of our longstanding policy of promoting energy development for the benefit of our economy. Why are such moderate proposals labeled as “democratic socialism?”

We Leftists Like to Label Our Proposals as Revolutionary Changes

One reason is that we on the political left like to describe our proposals as revolutionary changes. We like to think of ourselves as saving the world rather than merely making modest changes in our current policies. So, we describe what we are doing in revolutionary terms. Moreover, it is hard to mobilize millions of young people to work for a political campaign with the goal of tweaking the status quo. So, we call ourselves a revolution even when we aren’t really one.  We exaggerate as Bob Dylan did in the 1960s. “Democratic Socialist” is far more thrilling and satisfying as a label than “progressive Democrat.”

The Disadvantage of the Label 

However, the label also has a disadvantage: it invites the political right to agree that our proposals are radical or even revolutionary and that the people who make such proposals are socialists or even (gasp! choke!) communists. Ronald Reagan did that when he warned of “socialized medicine” in his campaign against Medicare in the 1960s, and Pres. Trump used the same kind of language in his Fourth of July speech at Mount Rushmore. Thus, both the left and the right tend to paint the left’s policy prescriptions as more radical than they really are. For the right, they are changes to be avoided at all costs, and for the left, they are a revolution that we must fight for if we are to have a better society.

Our Political Dialogue Substitutes Fantasy for Reality

Unfortunately, this illusion of radicalism makes our political dialogue very unrealistic. Disagreements are painted as much greater than they really are. Both sides act as if they believed that a revolution were coming. The social media are full of leftist posts that fulminate against the evils of capitalism and of rightist posts that warn of danger to all of our most cherished rights and traditions.

Both sides are talking nonsense. Nothing remotely radical or revolutionary has been proposed by the Democratic Socialists. Expanding a successful and popular healthcare program like Medicare to cover more people is not a revolutionary change, and neither are any of the other proposals of the Democratic Socialists. Consider, for example, the domestic policy proposals in the agenda outlined by Melat Kiros, the Democratic Socialist who recently won the Democratic primary in Denver, Colorado. They include "Medicare for All, stronger housing and childcare programs, public financing of elections, ... and abolishing ICE." 

Let's Get Real

Kiros's ideas may be good ideas, but they are hardly revolutionary, and they do not threaten capitalism in any way. If all of her proposals were adopted, many of our people would probably be better off, and our society would be more just, but the structure of our capitalist economy would not change. Our corporations would still be profitable, and capitalists like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel would still be billionaires. Even the public financing of elections coexists with capitalism in many countries. The truth is that the Democratic Socialists are in no way revolutionary. They appear to be radicals only because they think of themselves that way and because they use the "socialist" label in a way that plays into the hands of those who oppose even moderate changes to improve the life of our people.

We don't have to allow ourselves or our country to be drowned in a fight over imaginary radicalism. The fight favors only the political right and gets in the way of needed changes. We can frame important and useful proposals like Medicare for All, affordable childcare or the Green New Deal as the moderate proposals that they really are, and we can find real solutions to real problems like extreme inequality. We can avoid getting trapped in pointless discussions about the meaning of "socialism," and we can start to mitigate the injustices of our society.  Let’s get real.