________
The Problem With DSA Democrats Isn't Socialism, It's Third-Worldism
By John Daniel Davidson | August 12, 2026
Decades of immigration from Muslim-majority Third World countries has turned the Democrats into the party of militant anti-Americanism.
The recent electoral success of candidates affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has prompted many Republicans and commentators on the right to attack these Democrats for being "socialists" or "communists" — as if those labels will persuade voters, particularly younger voters, that DSA-backed candidates are just too radical.
It's not going to work. For many Americans, "socialist" is no longer an epithet the way it was during and immediately after the Cold War. Baby Boomers and Gen Xers (and even older Millennials) are simply mistaken if they think that calling New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani a commie is going to sting, or that pointing out the hypocrisy of well-heeled leftists is going to stick. This week Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana cracked a joke about "Lulu Lenins," which is funny but isn't going to deter voters who back DSA-affiliated candidates.
The main reason it won't work, though, isn't generational but cultural. Socialism or communism isn't really the problem with the DSA crowd, nor are the oft-lampooned woke white women who vote for leftist radicals. The real problem is that mass immigration from the Third World over the past 30 years has brought in huge numbers of people from Muslim-majority countries, where ethno-religious identity is more important than political ideology. Their voting patterns are determined by a set of priorities that are radically different than the traditional American mainstream.
Tribalism, in a word, is what drives much of the support for DSA-affiliated candidates. And it's beginning to make its mark on our elections simply because we have imported massive numbers of people from tribal societies who have not assimilated to American life in a meaningful way. That means, generally speaking, that Muslim immigrants will vote for a Muslim candidate, Arabs will vote for an Arab candidate, and so on.
You don't have to take my word for it. A recent exit poll of primary voters in Michigan's Democratic Senate primary found that among non-Arab primary voters, the vote was nearly evenly split between Abdul El-Sayed (47.9 percent) and Haley Stevens (48.2 percent). But among Arab voters, 94 percent voted for El-Sayed.
This is identity politics on steroids, and it is alien to the American political experience — certainly in a party primary. Yes, Democrat urban political machines in the late-19th century mobilized immigrant voting blocs, and Democrats for some time now have pushed identity politics among black and Hispanic voters. But what we're seeing today is something different, and the difference has to do with Third World immigration.
From Minnesota, where Somali immigrants have transformed state politics, to New York City, where immigrant voters (not over-educated white liberals) elected Mamdani mayor over a majority of native-born Americans who voted against him, we're seeing the kind of ethno-religious voting patterns that have emerged in places like Britain. In that country, which like the U.S. has seen large-scale immigration from the Third World in recent decades, the 2024 national elections revealed for the first time a recognizably Islamic agenda (more on that below).
What Third Worldism means electorally is that political affiliations and voting patterns are fundamentally tribal and essentially anti-American and anti-western. It won't do any good to complain that Hasan Piker says vile things about white people or the middle class, as if that should disqualify him and any Democrat candidate who associates with him. He is speaking tribally, and his audience understands him in those terms.
Likewise, if voters from immigrant communities support socialist policies it's not because they are persuaded by Marx's theory of dialectical materialism but because they want the government to give them and their community free stuff and preferential treatment. They want advantages for their people over the American mainstream.
For example, the right-wing commentariat likes to make fun of Mamdani's plan for city-run grocery stores, mocking it as a commie scheme that's bound to fail because of basic economics — and it probably will. But his immigrant-dominated constituency will support it even if it fails, even if it's a disaster, because it will mean they get food cheaper than they did before, at least for a while.
Please go to The Federalist to continue reading.
The main reason it won't work, though, isn't generational but cultural. Socialism or communism isn't really the problem with the DSA crowd, nor are the oft-lampooned woke white women who vote for leftist radicals. The real problem is that mass immigration from the Third World over the past 30 years has brought in huge numbers of people from Muslim-majority countries, where ethno-religious identity is more important than political ideology. Their voting patterns are determined by a set of priorities that are radically different than the traditional American mainstream.
Tribalism, in a word, is what drives much of the support for DSA-affiliated candidates. And it's beginning to make its mark on our elections simply because we have imported massive numbers of people from tribal societies who have not assimilated to American life in a meaningful way. That means, generally speaking, that Muslim immigrants will vote for a Muslim candidate, Arabs will vote for an Arab candidate, and so on.
You don't have to take my word for it. A recent exit poll of primary voters in Michigan's Democratic Senate primary found that among non-Arab primary voters, the vote was nearly evenly split between Abdul El-Sayed (47.9 percent) and Haley Stevens (48.2 percent). But among Arab voters, 94 percent voted for El-Sayed.
This is identity politics on steroids, and it is alien to the American political experience — certainly in a party primary. Yes, Democrat urban political machines in the late-19th century mobilized immigrant voting blocs, and Democrats for some time now have pushed identity politics among black and Hispanic voters. But what we're seeing today is something different, and the difference has to do with Third World immigration.
From Minnesota, where Somali immigrants have transformed state politics, to New York City, where immigrant voters (not over-educated white liberals) elected Mamdani mayor over a majority of native-born Americans who voted against him, we're seeing the kind of ethno-religious voting patterns that have emerged in places like Britain. In that country, which like the U.S. has seen large-scale immigration from the Third World in recent decades, the 2024 national elections revealed for the first time a recognizably Islamic agenda (more on that below).
What Third Worldism means electorally is that political affiliations and voting patterns are fundamentally tribal and essentially anti-American and anti-western. It won't do any good to complain that Hasan Piker says vile things about white people or the middle class, as if that should disqualify him and any Democrat candidate who associates with him. He is speaking tribally, and his audience understands him in those terms.
Likewise, if voters from immigrant communities support socialist policies it's not because they are persuaded by Marx's theory of dialectical materialism but because they want the government to give them and their community free stuff and preferential treatment. They want advantages for their people over the American mainstream.
For example, the right-wing commentariat likes to make fun of Mamdani's plan for city-run grocery stores, mocking it as a commie scheme that's bound to fail because of basic economics — and it probably will. But his immigrant-dominated constituency will support it even if it fails, even if it's a disaster, because it will mean they get food cheaper than they did before, at least for a while.
Please go to The Federalist to continue reading.
________
Editor's note: Writer Sasha Stone argues in a Substack piece linked below that prominent Democrats, including Bernie Sanders, AOC, and Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed (see above republished article), have suddenly started calling for an end to cancel culture, but only because they are trying to shield streamer Hasan Piker after his controversial comments about 9/11. Stone, who says she was personally canceled over a joke and her support for Trump, argues that cancel culture on the left is nowhere close to over and points to examples like WNBA player Sophie Cunningham facing backlash for comments on biological sex, ongoing criticism of author J.K. Rowling, and actor Geno Segers being removed from the musical Hadestown after past comments resurfaced. She also cites industry pushback against the Paramount and Skydance merger and Taylor Swift limiting who can use her music as evidence that cultural institutions still enforce ideological conformity. Her overall argument is that the left only wants cancel culture to end when it becomes inconvenient for their own allies, while continuing to use it as a tool against conservatives and dissenters.
Related:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.