History repeats itself. How often have we heard this phrase and shrugged it off since in the modern era all we usually hear is “it’s different now”.
Yet in politics and political parties, we have frequently seen eras when traditional platform beliefs become so transitional that the only choice is the creation of new parties. Perhaps this is where we are now.
In the beginning, the first American party was the Democratic-Republican Party. That lasted the first few decades, and everyone running was in the same party. But platform planks are neither written nor read the same to satisfy everyone, so divisions emerge. So, in the Quincy Adams-Andrew Jackson era, we saw a second party emerge, and since then we have largely been a two-party system, which has usually been defined as left vs. right, with each side claiming the middle. This is an important point to remember.
Even major shifts like the change from Democrats and Whigs to Democrats and Republicans continued to eventually foster a two-party system, with each party seeking to be the bigger tent and allow for flexibility within the tents.
But now we seem to be at a historical juncture that would not seem to allow hugely disparate views within the same left-of-center tent. The Democratic Party of America and the Democratic Socialists of America might find some concepts upon which they both agree, but in the main their core beliefs could not be further apart.
How do you reconcile differences with a group that publicly seeks the following amongst other tenets?
Asking ChatGPT to provide a succinct analysis of DSA core economic beliefs gave me the following answer.
“The most important DSA value is probably this:
DSA does not merely advocate a larger welfare state within capitalism. It seeks to transform the economic system itself. Its program describes capitalism as a system of “capitalist oligarchy” and calls for moving toward a society in which workers democratically control the economy.
So, in simplified terms:
Traditional liberalism is:
Private property + capitalism + government regulation + social programs.
Social democracy is:
Private capitalism + substantial taxation + extensive government services and redistribution.
DSA democratic socialism is:
Democratic control of the economy + substantial public ownership + worker power + eventual replacement of capitalism.
That last distinction is important because DSA calls itself socialist deliberately—it isn’t simply another name for progressive liberalism. “
All things considered, even this conservative traditional classical liberal can see how you can’t make a tent flexible enough to both hold a patriotic embrace of traditional values while seeking to modify how our delivery and interpretation of the role of big government and the antithesis of that thinking, by embracing a philosophy that seeks to turn who we are as a country upside down. Two polarities can’t survive in a house together, and as has been said, “a house divided against itself cannot stand. “
We truly live in interesting times. As we celebrate our 250th anniversary as a nation, we once again face challenges from those who seek to destroy what has been and who we are. The DSA couldn’t build their own structure so they will parasite using the longest-standing political party framework. It is my view that Republicans can ill afford to stand by as spectators and gleefully watch. Too much is at stake.
