On Tuesday, David Crowley narrowly defeated Democratic Socialist Francesca Hong for the Democratic nomination for Governor of Wisconsin. With about 800,000 votes cast for all candidates, Crowley earned about 4,000 more than Hong.
Crowley's win is notable because many polls showed Hong cruising to a big victory by as much as ~20% and because Democratic Socialists seemed to be ascendant within the Democratic Party after a few recent election wins, particularly in New York. In light of Hong's loss and a very near loss by Democratic Socialist Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan (despite huge polling leads), people have begun to question whether Democratic Socialism has any serious electoral legs, particularly outside of heavily democratic jurisdictions and at the national level.
With how Trump and Republicans (and to some extent, the Biden and Obama administrations and their fellow Democrats) have been running the country, there seems to be a serious opening for socialists to make inroads with average Americans.
At its core, socialism is ultimately about replacing a flawed capitalistic system that is heartless, corruptible, and unfair with a system that is more egalitarian and fair.
A capitalist system generally allows individuals to compete mostly unrestricted for resources and capital, motivated by their own interests and/or greed, and decide how those resources and capital are used. The idea is that such competition ultimately benefits society as a whole as it motivates people to invent and innovate, which ultimately increases living standards and lowers prices. Many ardent proponents of capitalism would concede that it has flaws and/or can be exploited or corrupted.
In contrast, a truly socialist society generally prohibits or seriously restricts the private ownership of resources and capital. Instead, the people collectively own and decide what to do with resources and capital. The idea is that we should all own roughly equal parts of the resources and capital that makes society work and have a roughly equal say in how its run or who runs it for us.
Socialism is primarily an economic system with a democratic foundation. With the current state of the country, I think many Americans would be unusually receptive to hearing about how socialism could improve their economic condition.
Inflation, amongst other things, has caused the price of food, housing, and property to skyrocket. A few people are becoming more and more wealthy (especially compared to most people), often without really providing any obvious benefit to the public at large. In conjunction with tech oligarchs, the government seems to be building a massive and potentially repressive surveillance state. Technological developments like "AI" and the infrastructure that support them are disrupting labor markets, eating up huge amounts of resources, and potentially harming the environment and climate, seemingly for no clear benefit other than to enrich and empower a small number of people and those running the government. Many people seem to be struggling financially. Pessimism about the future is the general feeling amongst the public.
The current president and his lackeys show no interest in ensuring adherence to fair rules in the current capitalist system. Instead, the president is a shamelessly crooked and incompetent buffoon. He and his relatives and friends are openly corrupt and act, not in the interest of the people, but for enriching themselves and those who support or flatter them. Because the president has developed a cult following and exerts nearly total control over his party, the president is able to exert enormous power, much of which does not lawfully belong to him, to achieve these selfish and corrupt ends at the expense of the people.
Yet, Democratic Socialists do not seem to be sweeping up the support of disenchanted Americans. Why? Unfortunately, many Democratic Socialists have shown themselves to be flawed, unserious people more focused on quixotic cultural and non-economic issues than on the economic concerns weighing on many Americans.
Arguably, Democrat Kamala Harris lost to Donald Trump in the 2024 election because many voters felt that their economic condition had deteriorated and that Donald Trump would improve it and that Democrats were radically opposed to enforcing America's borders and sovereignty. Many felt that Democrats had shown significant attention to cultural and other non-economic issues that did not interest (or even downright repulsed) them instead of focusing mostly on improving the economic condition of the average American.
And now, when many Americans seem to be hurting financially and may be receptive to serious change, Democratic Socialists are doubling down on the same or even worse versions of the cultural and other non-economic issues on which they have focused for years.
Francesca Hong previously blabbed about defunding and abolishing the police. She essentially declared that the unique plight of Black Americans is the most important issue in Wisconsin. She criticized Thanksgiving and Valentine's Day, advocating "cancelling" Thanksgiving.
Democratic candidate for New York's 13th congressional district Darializa Avila Chevalier holds and espouses the view that all deportations are morally wrong.
Then, you have one of the most prominent Democratic Socialists in America, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, laughing off the leftwing cultural excesses of the past five or six years as "crazy."
AOC: I have a local city councilman that has this saying: Woke 1 was crazy…. I think that during especially during covid, I think that the doors were really open in trying to entertain any and every policy that was going to get us to a better place. And I actually think that the… pic.twitter.com/VbmvfwJ70A
— Acyn (@Acyn) August 9, 2026
This take, particularly from someone who has been empowered to legislate for the nation, is difficult to swallow. If she and her Democratic Socialist compatriots were "crazy" with their views and opinions over the last five or six years, how can they be trusted to govern? Does Ocasio-Cortez truly understand the problem with her and her compatriots' beliefs and statements, or is that simply the impression she wants to give so people will vote for Democratic Socialists? I am sure nobody will remember or hold those "crazy" years against her if she decides to run for president.
Some of the non-economic issues focused on by the Democratic Socialists over the years are certainly important, and many people would agree that we as a society should at least consider how to address them. But, are these the most important issues for Americans who are despairing about how to find a job, how to pay for food, whether they will ever be able to afford a home? Do these issues have anything to do with socialism -- the collective ownership of resources and capital? Or does focusing on these issues and holding some of these strong opinions illustrate how unknowledgeable, immature, and out of touch they are about the priorities of average Americans and the difficulties they face?
The co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) seemingly has no concrete ideas for how she or her party members would accomplish the goals they espouse should they win election and gain political authority.
She does not know what she means when she advocates we "tax[] the hell out of" the wealthy. She does not know what she means when she says we should abolish prisons. She does not know what she means when she says to defund the police. She seems to think all foreign conflict can be solved by simply sending a team of diplomats to sort it all out for everyone.
If one of the top Democratic Socialist officials does not seem to understand their pet issues, have a concrete plan to implement their agenda, or have even researched and properly thought through their favored issues, what good are they? Why should anyone listen to them or vote for them to have political power?
Serious, qualified people would be knowledgeable about the issues they care about and how exactly they plan to address them. They would be surrounded by other knowledgeable, qualified, and serious people to help them enact their plans. Similarly, they would not focus so much on extreme and unpopular cultural and non-economic issues.
Your average American does not want unrestricted immigration from poor segments of the world. Your average American does not want to be brow-beaten (or have their career ruined) because they do not publicly assert that a transgender woman is the exact same as someone born with female chromosomes or because they did not change their Instagram photo to a black square to show support for the plight of Black Americans. Your average American does not want prisons and the police defunded and abolished. Your average American does not believe that Jews deserve whatever they get because of the current state of Palestine or what the nation of Israel does. Your average American does not believe that Russia invading Ukraine and every other foreign problem is America's fault.
Instead, your average American wants to be able to afford food, homes, and goods. Your average American wants their society to feel relatively fair and that their needs and opinions matter to how things are run. If you offer Americans a thoughtful, concrete plan for how socialism or certain elements of it will help Americans attain these things, then you might find Americans willing to listen to and even vote for you. And if you end up helping Americans attain these things with socialism, then you might find Americans willing to start hearing you out on some of your cultural and non-economic ideas. You might even find that helping Americans attain these things solves (or at least improves) some of the cultural ills you wanted to address.
Democratic Socialists' (and many Democrats generally) significant focus on cultural and non-economic issues (especially when many Americans do not strongly share their position on them) over economic issues has allowed Donald Trump and his cretinous sycophants to avoid responsibility for Americans' economic hardships and to paint his political opponents as the greater evil.
And if Democratic Socialists keep it up, the Democratic Party will not win many consequential elections. Trump and Trump-supporting Republicans will be able to persuade many Americans, rightfully or wrongfully, that Democratic Socialists' cultural and non-economic priorities and opinions are shared by all Democrats. They will be able to persuade far too many Americans to look past the Republican's massive corruption and failures and to believe that Democrats are ultimately responsible for Americans' hardships and/or that things would be worse for America if these commie, socialist, anti-American scum were to win.
A new generation of Americans will sour on socialism and, more importantly, may become interested in fascism and lawless strongmen. And America will suffer.