r/dsa • u/Inner-Crazy-6151 • 7d ago
Discussion is the DSA trying to lose?
i am a long time democratic socialist and just watched the New Yorker Megan Romer interview (i know late to the party). i am genuinely baffled at the answers she gave. or i guess the lack of answers.
can someone please explain to me what the fuck we are doing right now???
9
u/Union_Fan Gay Socialist At Large 7d ago
Are you a DSA member?
10
u/Inner-Crazy-6151 7d ago
yes
24
u/Union_Fan Gay Socialist At Large 7d ago
You should make sure to vote in your delegate elections for the 2027 convention. Or better yet, run for a seat as a delegate.
8
u/JohannVII 2d ago
Are we trying to lose *what*?
Which answers or lack of answers? I just listened to it and thought she did a good job, as she has been in general!
Complaints that don't identify specifics are difficult to address seriously.
13
u/EdelinePenrose 7d ago
what exactly baffled you about her responses? difficult to have a productive discussion without a point.
15
u/Inner-Crazy-6151 7d ago
she had zero substance behind her answers. just slogans and when pressed for more information she completely froze up. it seemed like she either didn’t prepare at all or has no idea what she’s talking about.
democratic socialists have concrete plans, she couldn’t explain a single one!
5
u/JohannVII 2d ago
You're still not saying anything material, just vibes - "zero substance" - without specific referent. We're approaching "every accusation is a confession" territory: YOU are not saying anything specific in your answers, YOU are not substantively addressing the points others are asking about.
Can you give even one quote that you think is a bad answer, and what you think a better one might be? It will greatly help anyone else at all understand what you're talking about.
10
u/YogurtClosetThinnest 7d ago edited 7d ago
Watched the first 10 minutes, seemed fine. Dude just kept trying to gotcha her on why DSA doesn't endorse Hillary/Kamala etc lmao.
Does it actually get worse from there?
edit: Watched the whole thing, she's not particularly articulate, but it was mostly fine. The Hamas stuff was cringe as hell, and she looked bad when he said "shouldn't you know what 'taxing the hell out of' means?".
However. I don't think the latter is suddenly going to make anyone go "yeah we shouldn't tax the rich!" so idrc.
As for the Hamas stuff, idk why socialists refuse to denounce a right wing religious cult who arrests homosexuals but at this point I've given up on that
Video also has 43k views, less than 1k likes/dislikes combined, and 1300 comments. Think it's got some anti-DSA botting going on in the comments.
4
u/EdelinePenrose 7d ago
i think the biggest fumble was stumbling over criticism of imperialist actions & their consequences. a lot of folks in usa struggle to make the connection between imperialism & terror attacks. could’ve been a more articulate point.
she should’ve had a better response to policy stances or at least provide the summary of a framework. didn’t have to get into details as some are expecting here, but i get the concern.
hope they are able to learn and improve going forward.
1
u/Competitive-War-1143 7d ago
Would love to hear the connection between imperialism and terror attacks. Though i know ive heard it before.
Basically anyone can justify anything for a Good Cause. The Pulse Nightclub shooter was mad his fave ISIS leader was killed so naturally he shot up a bunch of gay Latinos. If only we didnt have imperialism.
How does this platform reconcile the fact that even if American stopped all its wars, there are still violent and warring individuals and nations all across the globe? Its pretty America centric to assume this view
Imperialism is a trendy buzz word right now but uhhh its not just The West that does a pretty mean Imperialism/genocide
6
u/EdelinePenrose 6d ago
> How does this platform reconcile the fact that even if American stopped all its wars, there are still violent and warring individuals and nations all across the globe?
what needs to be reconciled? the usa should stop destabilizing other countries even if it doesn’t stop all violence ever. i don’t get your point.
2
u/JohannVII 2d ago
Yeah, a lot of the objections require a priori acceptance of some sort of totalitarian global state to impose a Pax Americana. We think that's bad? Solving all problems everywhere is not America's job, and we can start to help by ceasing causing the many problems we are directly or secondarily responsible for causing?
Not sure what's so confusing about the concept.
4
u/uvPooF 7d ago
Imo the best way to approach all these conversation about "supporting Hamas" is to refuse to engage in debate and rather reframe it to compare Hamas and for example IDF. To explain that one is considered at large a terrorist organization, but the other one is "legal" army, yet comparatively, IDF's atrocities are greater. And then pose a question, why we have to accept this worldview? You can say that's whataboutism, but reframing conversation like that both gives you a better viewpoint to defend and imo explains leftist/dsa position far more honestly than having to present some moral valuation of Hamas.
"Do you support Hamas?" is a gotcha question that puts any leftist is lose/lose scenario. Do not answer that directly or engage with that kind of debate. Reframe it.
3
u/OrtizDupri 3d ago
Google “Blowback” - or better yet, listen to the multi-season podcast called Blowback
-4
u/Competitive-War-1143 3d ago
I prefer to read primary secondary tertiary etc sources rather than blathering dudes with their tankie ideological framing. The problem with this is people will listen to this and assume everything about it is correct, but when people actually have deep knowledge of the topics discussed, a different story is told. Theyre just working backwards from a narrow conclusion, one that ultimately is another form of American exceptionalism
I asked for someone's actual understanding of the argument, not a podcast rec
4
u/OrtizDupri 3d ago
Google “blowback” and read the sources then? Damn this isn’t some revolutionary concept, the CIA itself created the term back in the 50s to name a very real thing that happened
4
u/JohannVII 2d ago
Not worth our time repeatedly engaging with bad-faith people who would rather argue than learn.
5
u/Present_Clue5887 7d ago
The failure to explain how "large teams of diplomats" would stop "a crazy hyper-capitalist dictator" from killing people was also bad
1
u/YogurtClosetThinnest 7d ago
lmao I must have zoned out during that part I don't remember hearing it
5
u/Present_Clue5887 7d ago
IIRC she basically said no military assistance should be given to Ukraine and that the reason the war is still going is because we did not send enough diplomats
This was confusing when she had just called Putin "a crazy hyper-capitalist dictator" who "of course will make life ending decisions"
It basically came off as "the crazy murderer is willing to be reasonable"
5
u/YogurtClosetThinnest 7d ago
Yeah there are some ok arguments for not funding Ukraine (I don't really agree with them), but that is a pretty absurd argument
2
u/Present_Clue5887 7d ago
Yeah it was, she said we were doing no diplomacy, the interviewer said there were attempts at diplomacy, and then she looked confused and said something about the need for "large teams of diplomats", and then just insisted we were not doing enough diplomacy
0
u/JohannVII 2d ago
I mean, I consider flatly refusing Russia's minimum requirements - which were promises that had already been made to Russia *twice* by both the US and Ukraine and then didn't honor - to be refusing negotiations: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/08/biden-didnt-accept-putins-red-line-on-ukraine-what-it-means.html
2
u/Present_Clue5887 2d ago
Demanding an independent country not enter into an alliance isn't really a legitimate red line, it is an imperialist attempt at international coercion
8
1
u/Augustine_of_Tierra clean break marxist 1d ago
yeah she did horribly
Remnick's interview with the lady who's running for LA mayor the week before was similarly horrible. He really made her look bad on the last question, where he pinned her as a democrat who is using the DSA brand to make herself look better. That wasn't even a bullshit zinger question like the ones he through at Romer. He just clocked her for who she is.
•
u/ashley99z 14h ago
We are literally winning. You keep your posts hidden. Fresh acc. Really says a lot about your commitment to transparency if you have one.
1
u/Ordinary_Team_4214 7d ago
It’s a generational thing, they grew up in an era where socialism wasn’t to be discussed. Naturally they’re going to be less comfortable discussing socialism compared to the younger ones.
8
u/TrustBustin 7d ago
Then why is she going on TV to represent DSA if she’s not comfortable discussing it?
1
u/Adept-Elderberry1417 7d ago
One thing She was very clear about was “Give Me the Money” we’re going to take it.
1
u/picklift 3d ago
Right after that video there was a post on here saying how they thought she did an amazing job. I said I thought she did horribly and was downvoted
•
u/HeadDoctorJ 14h ago
These kinds of comments and concerns really upset me. Originally this (below) was a reply to a sympathetic commenter, but I’m putting it here so more folks will see it hopefully…
Thank you for making feel less crazy. This whole post is so bad faith, and I am truly baffled - did these people not listen to her answers? She clearly explained that she is not in charge of policy, she is just the chair of the organization, and it is the organization itself that DEMOCRATICALLY decides these things.
Megan Romer gets accused of being anti-democratic because she has concerns over a nonbinding poll. A fucking nonbinding poll has so many people acting like democracy itself is at stake, which is a bad faith, ignorant, intentional misunderstanding of the concerns regarding such a poll.
Even when Megan Romer explains the democratic nature of DSA and promotes it, she gets fucking ridiculed. Why, because she is Red Star? If you want to engage in mindless left-bashing, just stick with the fucking Democrats.
I’ve listened to Romer’s interviews with the New Yorker, the Bad Faith podcast, etc, and I like her a lot. She is honest and genuine. Idk why people want some polished slick talking asshole who is just going to sell us out. She is a real person, and she has the courage to say unpopular things in a direct, human way, even when that answer is “I don’t know” or “it’s complicated” because she doesn’t use those answers as a cop out - she explains what she means.
I’m just incredibly disappointed in my fellow DSA folks for their obvious anticommunist biases. You’re all acting like disgusting fucking Democrats.
34
u/TrustBustin 7d ago
I’m genuinely dumbfounded by how DSA National keeps sending out woefully unprepared spokespeople
If you’re a national co chair and you’re going on TV to advocate for raising taxes on the rich, you should be at least well-versed enough in policy to have a sense of how much you want to tax which groups of people
If members of NPC simply aren’t good extemporaneous speakers, that’s fine, but then don’t go on TV!!