The recent victories of democratic socialist candidates in Democratic primaries across the country have sparked alarm among party realists, even as they provide fodder for political reporters and Republicans eager to highlight internal divisions.
For the media, these contests offer a familiar narrative of a party at war with itself—an aging establishment clashing with a new generation of radicals. For Republicans, the socialist surge is a welcome distraction from President Trump's sagging approval ratings, which have fallen into the low 30s amid his chaotic handling of tariffs, inflation, immigration, and foreign policy.
But for Democrats, the trend is deeply worrying. Just as they see an opportunity to capitalize on Trump's weaknesses, they face a challenge from their left flank. In deep-blue cities like New York, Seattle, Philadelphia, and Denver, democratic socialists have unseated moderate Democrats. Last week, Abdul El-Sayed's narrow win in Michigan's Senate primary was hailed as proof that left-wing candidates can win statewide. However, in Wisconsin, moderate David Crowley defeated socialist Francesca Hong, who had squandered a 20-point lead after past social media posts surfaced calling for abolishing the police and canceling Thanksgiving.
El-Sayed, while denying he is a socialist, aligns closely with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). He will now have to explain to swing voters his past support for abolishing ICE, his deleted post on reparations, and his association with Hasan Piker, a streamer who has made inflammatory statements about 9/11 and endorsed terrorism against Israel.
Republicans are cheering these socialist victories, believing that candidates with such extreme views will repel working-class voters. As some Democratic strategists have admitted, the DSA's agenda is a liability.
Rather than appeasing the socialist fringe, Democrats should take three steps to prevent them from sabotaging the party's comeback. First, they must disavow collectivist ideas and reaffirm their liberal convictions. Second, they should expose the false claim that socialists speak for working Americans. Third, they need to develop their own ambitious, pragmatic reforms grounded in America's civic tradition.
The DSA's new program reads like a communist fantasy. It proposes to abolish capitalism, have the government own all major companies, and guarantee everything from food to housing. It calls for open borders, eliminating police and prisons, reviving the Green New Deal, and passing reparations. It even proposes scrapping the Constitution, eliminating the Senate, presidency, and Supreme Court, and vesting all power in the House.
The DSA's foreign policy is equally radical: defund the Pentagon, close overseas bases, dissolve alliances, cut off aid to Israel, and create a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. Its manifesto, “Workers Deserve More,” has the depth of a coloring book, and its membership is overwhelmingly privileged—85% white, with only 4% in blue-collar jobs.
If Democrats let these “bougie Bolsheviks” hijack their agenda, they will lose more ground with authentic working-class voters. But the socialists are right about one thing: Washington Democrats are too comfortable with the status quo. The party needs fresh ideas for structural reforms that revive upward mobility, control immigration and crime, reform campaign finance, and restore government's capacity to adapt.
Democrats don't need to look to Europe or Marx. They can find inspiration in their own tradition of liberal reform from America's pragmatic center. As some argue, the party's New Deal roots offer a better model than the DSA's extremism.
