Paul Kengor: Democrats vs. democratic socialists |
Paul Kengor, Columnist

Paul Kengor: Democrats vs. democratic socialists

Paul Kengor
Sen. Bernie Sanders

“President Trump has proved himself adroit at creating villains to serve as his political foils,” states The New York Times. “In his State of the Union address, he introduced a new one: socialists. … Mr. Trump chose to introduce the socialist menace in perhaps the highest-profile setting available.”

“Yet,” sniffs The Times in protest, “there is no evidence of any growing public angst about socialism sweeping the United States.”

Memo to the Times: Actually, there’s plenty of evidence, not only throughout the United States but within the Democratic Party. And where there isn’t angst there’s troubling acceptance, thus creating further angst within the Democratic Party. The Times piece, ironically, proceeded to show just that, even quoting a source who rightly noted of Democratic Party socialists Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez, D-N.Y. and others: “They want to take the country toward socialism and their party is divided on that and there is a major fight in their party over whether to be a socialist party.”

For such reasons, Trump said that he was “alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.”

It was a revealing, signature moment for not only Trump, but also for the Democratic Party.

To their credit, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer applauded Trump’s line, as did a decent number of Democrats, including no less than Elizabeth Warren, who stood and applauded vigorously. It was a striking sight.

It was also a striking dichotomy among Democrats.

Every camera in that chamber during the State of the Union caught an agitated Sanders visibly uncomfortable with Trump’s rebuke of socialism. Likewise uneasy, sitting there stone-faced, was Ocasio-Cortez, who is one of many members of the Democratic Socialists of America, the self-described “largest socialist organization in the United States,” elected in November. These DSA members ran not on a DSA ticket but the Democratic Party ticket. Seated not far from Ocasio-Cortez was a fellow DSA socialist-turned-Democrat, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, who shortly after her swearing-in ceremony vowed of Trump, “we’re gonna impeach the (blankety blank)!”

They’re hardly the only Democrats with socialist sympathies recently elected. Here in Western Pennsylvania, voters elected two DSA members to the state house, Summer Lee and Sara Innamorato.

How popular is socialism among modern Democrats?

In the 2016 Democratic Party primary, lifetime socialist Sanders received 13 million votes, or 40 percent of Democrat votes. Finishing as runner-up in 2106 presumably makes Bernie the frontrunner for 2020. This week, he announced his candidacy, vowing nothing short of “transforming the country” to complete “the political revolution” begun in 2016.

And beyond that, Democrats are already hooked on running Ocasio-Cortez for president the day she turns age-eligible. DNC chair Tom Perez enthuses that the 29-year-old Ocasio-Cortez “represents the future of our party.”

Really, Chairman Perez? A socialist is the future of your party? What would Harry Truman and Jack Kennedy think about that?

The answer is they’d be stunned.

I was pleased to see Pelosi, Schumer and Warren apparently approve of our president’s insistence that America not become socialist. I applaud that. Now it’s time they do something about their own party becoming socialist. This is less a battle between Trump and Democrats than Democrats and democratic socialists.

Paul Kengor is a professor of political science and chief academic fellow of the Institute for Faith & Freedom at Grove City College.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.