Tag: democratic socialists

Communism is on the rise in the United States and has now entered otherwise mainstream Democratic Party politics.

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is on track to increase the number of its members in Congress from two to at least six in January, possibly more. That’s not including Sen. Bernie Sanders, who calls himself a democratic socialist.

A DSA member named Francesca Hong just came within striking distance of becoming the Democratic nominee for governor of Wisconsin, one of our largest and most important states. Hong was narrowly defeated in the Aug. 11 primary by Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley.

Don’t be confused by those calling themselves socialists. A few may be well-meaning middle-of-the-road Democrats who favor the Scandinavian socialist model. But others are wolves in sheep’s clothing – communists who use the socialist label to hide their real intentions.

What’s interesting is that many of the new socialists don’t even try to hide their radical leanings. They publicly call themselves socialists and are proud of it.

After the fight against communism in the U.S. in the 1950s and the U.S. victory in the Cold War by the early 1990s, most Americans might assume that communism is no longer a threat to the American way of life and the U.S. political system.

That’s a mistake.

Communist and Marxist ideas are alive and well in the U.S. and are thriving in universities, think tanks, foundations, the media and other institutions that Americans typically think of as having better motives.

The Evolution of Revolution

This ideological infiltration may follow Marxian economics, but the method used by the new communists was anticipated by the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci, who wrote in the 1920s and 1930s.

Gramsci agreed with Marx’s goal – the abolition of private property – but he thought the way to achieve it was not through violent revolution but through a long-term struggle for control of society’s cultural and political institutions.

Decades later, this strategy came to be described as “the long march through the institutions.”

In other words, communism would not necessarily win by direct confrontation but by a gradual infiltration of education, culture and governance and the decline of critical thinking.

U.S. institutions would become ideological boot camps and propaganda outlets that would gradually convince Americans that communism, dressed up as “socialism,” was the better path.

From there, it would be a simple task to tear down traditional constitutional structures by getting rid of the Senate, the Electoral College and an independent judiciary.

Top-down communist control would be the final step. No revolution required. Just long-term rot like the proliferation of mold or termites.

For a powerful example of this process, consider the recent controversy surrounding the Smithsonian Institution and testimony before Congress by Anthea Hartig, director of the National Museum of American History.

The dispute centered on whether America’s national museums have increasingly emphasized slavery, race and inequality at the expense of the country’s founders and achievements. Hartig defended the museum’s approach and told lawmakers that it does not take sides in America’s political debates.

The Smithsonian’s treatment of Benjamin Franklin, for example, emphasizes his history as a slaveholder. Yet Franklin was also one of the great scientists and founders of the 18th century and, later in life, became a leading abolitionist.

He served as president of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery and, in 1790, petitioned Congress to work toward ending slavery.

Franklin also became the nation’s first postmaster general, helped establish an early fire insurance company and helped found the institution that became the University of Pennsylvania, where I attended law school.

The real issue is one of emphasis: whether America’s national museums should primarily celebrate the country’s achievements or increasingly focus on slavery, race, inequality and other failures in the American story.

That debate is worth having because institutions shape the way Americans understand their own country.

Keep reading