JIM GERAGHTY: The DSA Has Slogans, but Isn’t Interested in Policies.
Near the end of the [New Yorker interview with David Remnick] — perhaps sensing that she had not come across as knowledgeable and thoughtful in her answers — [DSA co-chair Megan] Romer emphasized that she doesn’t really speak on behalf of the Democratic Socialists of America:
Romer: So, if you’re looking to me to be the one true arbiter of DSA thought, I am absolutely not. I come from a—
Remnick: Who is? Or that doesn’t exist, and never will?
Romer: DSA, it doesn’t exist. A convention, I guess, would be the closest to the one true arbiter of DSA, and it happens every two years.
Over on the DSA Reddit, you can find DSA enthusiasts calling Remnick “a member of the ‘elite New York intellectual class’” who “considers himself above regular fly over state working class people.” (I feel like I’ve heard that kind of knee-jerk snide dismissal before.) But recall which questions tripped up Romer:
- “What does ‘taxing the hell out of them’ mean?”
- “What does prison abolition mean to you? ”
- “What does defunding the police mean, in your mind? ”
- “How do you feel about [Russia’s invasion of Ukraine]? ”
- “What is the position that DSA is headed toward here? Is it for a two-state solution, or is it a binational, one-state solution?”
Those are not trivia questions. He’s asking her what she thinks. In theory, there’s no wrong answer.
I could write that Romer is a shallow, uninformed moron, and that would be a lot of fun and probably go viral. But it probably wouldn’t dissuade anyone who feels positively about the DSA. Fans of the socialist movement will probably dig in their heels and conclude, like that Reddit commenter, that Remnick, you, and I are being smug elitists because Romer had troubling answering those questions and articulating what policies she wanted to see.
At Commentary, Seth Mandel adds that “facts are ruinous to anyone who wants to argue for the eradication of Israel. The DSA has rebranded itself as first and foremost an anti-Zionist organization supportive of the worst kind of violence. Knowledge of the important events in this conflict make taking such a position indefensible—which, of course, it is.”
Related: