Lifelong MSNBC Liberal Separates Himself From Far-Left, DSA

For years, some conservatives have made a distinction that often gets lost in ordinary political conversation: a liberal and a leftist are not necessarily the same thing.

Traditional liberals generally operate within the existing American political system, even when they favor expanding government programs or strengthening labor protections. The farther-left movement, particularly organizations such as the Democratic Socialists of America, has pushed for more sweeping changes to institutions, policing, immigration enforcement, defense policy, and the economy.

For a long time, that difference seemed largely academic. As progressive activists gained influence inside the Democratic Party, many moderate Democrats appeared reluctant to openly challenge them. Now, however, some longtime liberals are beginning to argue that the party needs to draw clearer boundaries.

Former television host Chris Matthews made that case during a Wednesday appearance on MS NOW’s “Morning Joe.”

Matthews, a lifelong Democrat who has spent decades around Democratic politics, argued that the DSA may have inadvertently helped more conventional Democrats by clearly stating its positions.

“The DSA has done a favor to non-DSA Democrats, to regular Democrats who are regular members of the party,” Matthews said. “They’ve listed what they believe in.”

He then pointed to positions he associates with the socialist organization, including eliminating Immigration and Customs Enforcement, dramatically changing border policy, reducing or eliminating prisons, and taking a much different approach to the military.

Matthews’ point was straightforward: Democrats who disagree with those ideas should simply say so.

Rather than allowing Republicans to define every Democrat by the most aggressive proposals coming from the party’s left flank, Matthews argued that candidates should publicly explain where they differ. In his view, a Democrat can continue supporting labor unions, civil rights, economic opportunity, and other long-standing liberal priorities without embracing the DSA’s agenda.

His sharpest remarks came while discussing Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has frequently defended the Democratic Party as a broad coalition containing a wide range of ideological views.

Matthews said he generally likes Ocasio-Cortez, but rejected the idea that the “big tent” argument solves the problem.

According to Matthews, the danger is that ordinary Democratic candidates can end up being asked to defend every controversial proposal associated with activists on the far left simply because those activists operate within the same political coalition.

“Every Democrat has to defend all this crap coming from the left,” Matthews said, before arguing that candidates should clearly state when they are not members of the DSA and explain why.

There is some political logic behind his argument. Candidates are often hurt when voters believe they are unwilling to criticize unpopular ideas associated with their own side. Republicans face a similar problem when they hesitate to distance themselves from controversial figures or movements on the right.

For Democrats, however, the problem has become increasingly visible as socialist-backed candidates and organizations have gained influence in prominent races and major cities.

That is why Matthews’ comments are notable. They represent an argument from inside the Democratic coalition that ideological separation may now be politically necessary.

The obvious criticism is that this warning is arriving late.

Moderate Democrats had opportunities years ago to establish clearer lines between conventional liberalism and democratic socialism. Many instead tried to avoid internal conflict while progressive organizations built fundraising networks, activist bases, and electoral influence.

Now that those groups are winning races and shaping policy debates, separating the factions becomes considerably harder.

Matthews is therefore correct about the basic political challenge. Democrats who reject the DSA’s more radical positions should be willing to say so plainly and explain what they believe instead.

The Western Journal