Old School Democrats are losing it.
Losing the young and, therefore, control of the direction of their
Do they understand the dangers?
While it is expected that Republicans — such as Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) — would object to the rise of socialist agitation in the Democratic Party, getting Democratic leaders to object to the new radicalism has not proved quite so easy.
But James Carville, the strategist behind Bill Clinton’s victorious presidential runs three decades ago, is speaking out.
“What I would tell a Democratic socialist — ‘If you hate the Democratic brand so much, why use our words? Go call yourself something else. Call yourself the Socialists of America,” he said. “Don’t use our name. Make up your own name.”
The Fox News report elaborated, “Carville argued that the DSA’s values and policy positions, including defunding the police, do not align with those of the Democratic Party.”
Now, Carville’s not really in any position to demand that the ersatz “Democratic Socialists” strike the “Democratic” from their name. The Democratic Party — the party of Jackson and Van Buren as well as of Wilson and FDR — does not have a monopoly on the term. It is not Democratic® or Democratic™. And what with how Democrats in the Democratic Party are now scarcely committed to democratic processes at all — remember the stealing of Bernie Sanders’ nominations, or selecting a new presidential candidate without one vote of party regulars? — maybe the term should be up for grabs.
But not by socialists.
Why? Carville called the hyper-successful and self-designated socialist “streamer” Hasan Piker an “idiot,” and his listeners “left-wing idiots.”
Yet they cannot call themselves “Idiot Socialists of America,” can they?
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with Nano Banana
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts
