The Gentrifiers' Revolution

Political power is based on the moment.

It's based on the haves and the have-nots. On who is in control and whether that person or group is meeting the population's current needs. It is also about negotiation. Political power is managing various factions of your supporters to ensure that everyone gets a slice of the pie while keeping no single slice too large. It's a constant balancing act of trying to implement your own agenda while simultaneously ensuring that policies are passed that benefit the community as a whole. The goal of any individual or group in power is to understand the history of what has been tried and failed and to avoid making similar mistakes. If you can't grasp this context, you simply cannot succeed in your efforts to wrangle power from those who possess it. 

The Democratic Socialists of America fall into this category. 

Because, like any far-left group, DSA has failed to understand the broader context for how and why the Democratic Party continues to remain in power at the national level. To be an insurgent group, DSA has to use the party to undermine the party. It's why its candidates run in the party's primaries. It's why they caucus with them in Washington. DSA needs the infrastructure of the Democratic Party to have any shot at winning. They need the DNC's software, access to voter rolls, fundraising apparatus, and relationships with local media to be seen and heard throughout the primary process. They want to remake the party in their own image, and the only way they can do that is by taking advantage of the existing systems in place that the Democratic Party has spent decades building. Without the party, DSA would be nothing more than a third-party spoiler, even less influential than the Green or Libertarian Party in the United States. They know this, and it informs their entire political strategy. 

Because if you're going to use the party to screw over the party, you damn well better win. DSA can't afford to spend its limited political capital on toss-up races, so it instead focuses on the most democratic districts in the country. Their endorsement process has been simple: to receive a full DSA-backed endorsement, a candidate needs to be public in their support for Medicare-for-All, abolishing ICE, and ending the "genocide" in Gaza. This cycle, DSA has endorsed candidates in the country's most democratic district (PA-03), the 11th most (NY-13), the 16th most (CO-01), and the 29th most (NY-07). The one notable exception seems to be in the newly created FL-25 district, where DSA-backed Oliver Larkin is challenging incumbent Congressman Jared Moskowitz. With polling showing Moskowitz with a commanding lead, this particular race seems less about winning and more about DSA making a stand against Moskowitz, who has been an outspoken supporter of Israel throughout his time in Congress. If you want to find a district where a DSA candidate is running for Congress, using the Cook Political Report's Partisan Voting Index is a seamless way to pinpoint where and how the "great socialist revolution" will unfold next. 

It's important to note that these districts have an overwhelming number of Democratic voters, making winning the primary a formality to winning the general election. But more importantly, they are also among the most gentrified in the country. Cities like New York, Denver, and Philadelphia have seen massive numbers of people of color forced out of their communities over the past two decades, giving way to wealthy, more affluent, whiter residents to move in. This was seen in both New York City races, as NY-07 saw a 27% decline in the Latino population since a 2005 rezoning, and NY-13 saw a 13% decrease in the native Dominican population over the past 5 years, giving way to an influx of White, affluent voters to the district. In Denver, the CO-01 district's Five Points neighborhood, referred to as the "Harlem of the West," saw more than 8,000 Black families forced out of the district in the 2010s due to gentrification. And in PA-03, centered in West Philadelphia, we've seen hundreds of Black families pushed out of the district to make way for the University City expansion of Drexel University. In each of these four districts, the displaced families of color have given way to affluent, White families who have happily come in to seize homes now available at a price range they can afford.  

For an organization like DSA with 2/3 of its members identifying as non-Hispanic Whites, this speaks directly to how and why they've taken the approach that they have. It's no coincidence that in the three cities of New York, L.A., and Washington, DC, with the most registered DSA members, we have three DSA-backed candidates for mayor this election cycle. DSA's entire power-building model is based on the new influx of White, affluent individuals moving into gentrified neighborhoods and displacing longtime residents of color. DSA will point to their token candidates of color. Still, when the demographics of those voting on endorsements don't align with the demographics of the community as a whole, you have to ask yourself whom this "revolution" is truly for. DSA is not out fighting the displacement of communities of color because they need communities of color to be displaced to make way for their members. If DSA wanted a true revolution of the working class, wouldn't they want those most negatively impacted by capitalist policies to have a seat at the table?

But we don't need to ask that question. The proof is in the pudding. DSA has shown itself this cycle as a racist and antisemitic organization working to elevate White communities at the expense of communities of color. Their endorsement platform is a White wishlist of policies that fail to meet the everyday struggles of Black and brown communities. At a time when these communities are under attack at the federal level, DSA remains hyper-focused on Medicare-for-All, abolishing ICE, and defending Gaza, three issues that bear little to no impact on our communities of color. There's a reason why DSA doesn't run candidates in purple districts: they know how massively unpopular their platform is outside of their affluent White communities. A candidate for Congress in a gentrified New York, Denver, or Philadelphia does not equate to a candidate running in a suburban district in Wisconsin, Nevada, Arizona, or North Carolina. While DSA is getting all the media coverage, it has been moderate Democrats who have helped flip over 30 seats from red to blue since the 2024 election. These candidates are successfully running on affordability issues and GOP corruption, and are rightly staying away from the extreme DSA-backed platform. The handful of DSA candidates who have run in these primaries have been soundly defeated, as their message simply has not resonated beyond the friendly confines of gentrified DSA districts.

With DSA riding high on its latest win in Denver, we've seen increasing pushback online, citing the group's inability to win these contested races. Now that we're into July, primaries are becoming fewer and fewer. Other than the likely defeat of Oliver Larkin in FL-25 in August, DSA doesn't have a single endorsed congressional candidate listed on its main endorsement page. While they will focus a lot of their upcoming time and money on the mayoral races in L.A. and D.C., the truth is that DSA is simply running out of gentrified districts to challenge Democratic congressional incumbents. It speaks volumes that Abdul El-Sayed, whose platform is strikingly similar to those of other DSA-endorsed candidates, has the potential to become the Democratic Senate candidate from Michigan, but DSA is too scared to publicly endorse him for fear that they'll lose a statewide race, which would only further the narrative that their influence is confined to hyper-localized races. Because deep down inside, DSA knows it to be true. They know that their "movement" is one heavily reliant on White people residing in the country's most gentrified cities. They can't win in swing districts, they can't win statewide, and they certainly can't win at the national level. Rather than grow their movement, they're more than happy to lock down the far-left, White, antisemitic, racist voting bloc for the foreseeable future. 

The base of the Democratic Party is Black and Jewish voters. The same two groups that DSA intentionally excludes and actively works to undermine. Telling Hakeem Jeffries that he'll be the next congressman to lose his primary might feel good in the moment, but Black voters see the obvious racism behind the attacks against the first Black Minority Leader. The fact that DSA has been silent throughout the recent fight over birthright citizenship shows that they aren't truly representing Black and brown communities. Their "socialist revolution" was never meant to be a revolution for all. It was always meant to be a feel-good campaign for White progressives who moved into the neighborhood and wanted to build their own political power rather than that of the longstanding community members of color. This newest iteration of DSA is simply the rich, millennial children of hippies who want to chant and march without putting in any of the long-term work necessary to win meaningful reform. It is a form of performative politics that is certainly loud and even more certainly ineffective. 

For all its bluster, DSA is nothing more than Justice Democrats 2.0. They likely will have a handful of Democrats in Congress in 2027. But like the Squad, these Democrats will be neutered under the political guile of a strong Speaker of the House. Because Democrats as a whole aren't prioritizing the wishful thinking of gentrified affluent White people in the cities. Instead, they're focusing on the cost of living, housing, the environment (beyond simply shouting GREEN NEW DEAL!), and restoring the rights taken away from immigrants, women, and people of color under the Trump Administration. DSA members can scream about abolishing ICE all they want, but real Democrats know there needs to be an immigrant enforcement agency that manages and monitors our southern border against drug and human trafficking. DSA's raging antisemitism might play well on the campaign trail, but when you have to work closely with Josh Moskowitz in committee, knowing you need his vote to bring funds back to your constituents, you're much more likely to change your tune. And while they'll continue to press for M4A, the reality is that there exist many outstanding disparities in our health care system that can be addressed through targeted, specific legislation. They simply need to watch and learn from Congresswoman Lauren Underwood, among others. 

At the end of the day, DSA is doing its darndest to try to capitalize on the Democrats' 2024 election loss. They need to win elections to build legitimacy. And while they now have a sitting major city mayor and four likely new members of Congress, the truth is they are close to maxed out on growing their movement. Because when your movement is centered on progressive White angst, it's not a movement in line with the country's changing demographics. Black and brown voters are the past, present, and future of the Democratic Party. Excluding them from your "movement" shows you don't understand power building in the 21st century. While these small wins might feel good in the moment, what we're seeing is that DSA has no long-term strategy to expand beyond its shrinking White base. They may be able to pick off the occasional gentrified district, but DSA relying on White men and women to lead when their demographics elected Donald Trump twice is a foolhardy strategy. DSA may revel in the moment, but basing an entire political movement on White urban gentrification is unsustainable, and they are absolutely aware of this fact. That's why they're so loud and boisterous when they win, because they know their movement has such a short political shelf life. 

And they know that their movement is only possible when Democrats aren't in the majority.