Thank you Robert Miller for providing this insightful presentation along with a SOLUTION. As I read your piece I was struck by the morality factor, as in, these DSA advocates do not demonstrate a scintilla of conscience. They are about power and control.
Thank you for reading. One note of care: the piece claims nothing about anyone's conscience. It claims what the documents show about a structure. The offense is never the idea. It is the method.
Well done, but I wish it didn’t have to be so oblique. I see frustration, marginalization, advocacy for things that cause economic harm, and open and repeated manipulation. Yet, I can’t say I know for certain who is a peacock, who is naive and inexperienced, who is intellectually lazy, ignorant of policy or simply busy looking for the loopholes to exploit. Is it as Machiavellian as following a hidden agenda that upends allegiance?
I once had a boss who announced to the rank and file that her door was always open, only to find that that door was either revolving or simply didn’t have a knob. The pretense of accessibility was there, but (as Billy Joel would say), when it comes to some things, “It’s just a fantasy; it’s not the real thing.” Many learned to stop knocking. And behind the door business went on unimpeded.
The obliqueness is deliberate. Which of the four is calculating and which is naive, I cannot know, so the piece does not claim it. What the documents support is the structure: the terms, the standing meeting, the teeth. The rest I leave where you left it, to each reader's experience of doors.
My concern with DSA is not that its members have political beliefs or belong to an organization. It is whether they can exercise independent judgment when doing so conflicts with DSA policy. City council members in nonpartisan positions should put the public’s interests ahead of their standing in a political organization. (DSA’s national bylaws, Article I, Section 3, allow expulsion for substantial disagreement with its principles or policies.)
Still, I understand the appeal. Many younger Americans feel that the traditional promise—get an education, work hard and build a secure life—is becoming harder to fulfill. That frustration may make alternatives to mainstream Democrats more attractive. Pew reported in January 2026 that 53% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents under 50 wished there were more political parties, compared with 38% of those 50 and older. That does not demonstrate support for socialism, but it does suggest dissatisfaction with the available choices. Pew Research Center
I think DSA will struggle to expand its national appeal if ideological loyalty takes priority over practical results. Disappointment with mainstream Democrats may bring voters through the door, but keeping their support will require making everyday life better.
Portland’s DSA council members would be wise to consider if, as one example, making foie gras a priority makes them look out of touch with the economic frustrations that may have helped them win support. Whatever the merits of the ban, voters struggling to pay rent need evidence that the council can make everyday life more affordable. As the familiar political reminder goes: “It’s the economy, stupid.”
DSA, like the communist revolutionaries of the 20th century, will adapt shamelessly (Hitler-Stalin Pact, anyone?); they will aim to destabilize the status quo, since happy societies aren't revolutionary. Which, let us remember, Comrade Mao said comes from the barrel of a gun.
Thank you. Your first paragraph states the article's question better than I did: not what they believe, but whether independent judgment survives a structure that can expel them for substantial disagreement. I did not have the bylaws citation. I do now. And the remedy follows your logic: disclosure asks nothing of a councilor whose only allegiance is the one in the oath.
Portland's "super-woke" DSAs, who have demanded that prospective beneficiaries of their endorsements adhere to every one of the party's numerous enlightened positions, should allow favored candidates at least a little bit of normal-level woke-ness (or even napping) on less important issues.
It's hard to believe that the Charter Commission--one of its members a DSA member, another a sympathizer--didn't know what they were doing when they said the council/mayoral elections would continue to be "non-partisan." This is just one of the many little gotchas in the document, engineered, explicitly, to supercharge "minorities," including political parties. You voted for it; you got it.
No one in legacy media is remotely interested in the fallout from the radical charter; they ignored it when it was being cooked by the City Club, Coalition of Communities of Color, and their plant, Julia Meier (aka, She Who Must Never Be Mentioned). They cut off any intelligent debate of the weird aspects of the charter; they endorsed it and allowed the bureaucrats to trundle out the vote. They're ignoring it now.
But there's good news: in a mere nine years the charter will be reconsidered.
Hello Joe McCarthy! This article tries to destroy by innuendo: "Some people do this and they seem to be up to no good!" Who are these people? Name names, give facts. What have they done and how does that relate to the Democratic Socialists of America? I am not a fan of our city government but throwing around suspicions that it might be subverted by socialists without naming names is just too easy and too cheap. Unfortunately, it's not just fear mongering from the right. Even people who call themselves Socialists have only vague ideas of what they are talking about. Socialism is the first stage of the Communist Revolution where the Capitalists are overthrown, expropriated and the state takes over the ownership of the means of production, meaning private corporations are nationalized. Nobody in this country in his or her right mind (with the exception of Donald Trump who actively takes government ownership in private enterprises) would advocate something like that. Our "Socialists" are actually Social Democrats who do not want to abolish Capitalism. They want to humanize it with laws that protect the environment, the rights and economic well-being of working people and support general social welfare and justice for the society we're all living in.
The names are in the article: the four councilors are identified by name, from the chapter's own published materials. Every claim is sourced to documents the organization itself made public: its endorsement terms, its recruiting page, its slate announcements. That is the opposite of McCarthy, whose method was a list he never produced. Nothing here asks you to trust me; the sources are linked and you can read them yourself. On the taxonomy of socialism I take no position, and the article says so. The offense is never the idea. It is the method: binding commitments to a private organization, made before the public oath, disclosed nowhere the voter looks. That question would stand if the organization were a chamber of commerce.
Thank you for such a piece that is calm, collected, and concise (with forgiveness for the intentional alliteration).
There is a lot of focus on the emotionality of the actors themselves - some of them bringing on visceral reactions from their craft. They want to get the audience’s attention and they are succeeding at that.
I appreciate the different approach as politics gets people to vote out of emotion. This is how dictators have slicked their way into power. People don’t want to take the time to learn about the production as a whole - they just want the result of what they think will make them feel good. Due to social media it has become all about instant gratification; select the person that makes you feel the best rather than considering what is being done to make you feel this way.
To quote Marshall McLuhan, the medium is the message. Thank you for putting the work into helping us understand the medium.
Thank you Robert Miller for providing this insightful presentation along with a SOLUTION. As I read your piece I was struck by the morality factor, as in, these DSA advocates do not demonstrate a scintilla of conscience. They are about power and control.
Thank you for reading. One note of care: the piece claims nothing about anyone's conscience. It claims what the documents show about a structure. The offense is never the idea. It is the method.
Well done, but I wish it didn’t have to be so oblique. I see frustration, marginalization, advocacy for things that cause economic harm, and open and repeated manipulation. Yet, I can’t say I know for certain who is a peacock, who is naive and inexperienced, who is intellectually lazy, ignorant of policy or simply busy looking for the loopholes to exploit. Is it as Machiavellian as following a hidden agenda that upends allegiance?
I once had a boss who announced to the rank and file that her door was always open, only to find that that door was either revolving or simply didn’t have a knob. The pretense of accessibility was there, but (as Billy Joel would say), when it comes to some things, “It’s just a fantasy; it’s not the real thing.” Many learned to stop knocking. And behind the door business went on unimpeded.
The obliqueness is deliberate. Which of the four is calculating and which is naive, I cannot know, so the piece does not claim it. What the documents support is the structure: the terms, the standing meeting, the teeth. The rest I leave where you left it, to each reader's experience of doors.
My concern with DSA is not that its members have political beliefs or belong to an organization. It is whether they can exercise independent judgment when doing so conflicts with DSA policy. City council members in nonpartisan positions should put the public’s interests ahead of their standing in a political organization. (DSA’s national bylaws, Article I, Section 3, allow expulsion for substantial disagreement with its principles or policies.)
Still, I understand the appeal. Many younger Americans feel that the traditional promise—get an education, work hard and build a secure life—is becoming harder to fulfill. That frustration may make alternatives to mainstream Democrats more attractive. Pew reported in January 2026 that 53% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents under 50 wished there were more political parties, compared with 38% of those 50 and older. That does not demonstrate support for socialism, but it does suggest dissatisfaction with the available choices. Pew Research Center
I think DSA will struggle to expand its national appeal if ideological loyalty takes priority over practical results. Disappointment with mainstream Democrats may bring voters through the door, but keeping their support will require making everyday life better.
Portland’s DSA council members would be wise to consider if, as one example, making foie gras a priority makes them look out of touch with the economic frustrations that may have helped them win support. Whatever the merits of the ban, voters struggling to pay rent need evidence that the council can make everyday life more affordable. As the familiar political reminder goes: “It’s the economy, stupid.”
DSA, like the communist revolutionaries of the 20th century, will adapt shamelessly (Hitler-Stalin Pact, anyone?); they will aim to destabilize the status quo, since happy societies aren't revolutionary. Which, let us remember, Comrade Mao said comes from the barrel of a gun.
Thank you. Your first paragraph states the article's question better than I did: not what they believe, but whether independent judgment survives a structure that can expel them for substantial disagreement. I did not have the bylaws citation. I do now. And the remedy follows your logic: disclosure asks nothing of a councilor whose only allegiance is the one in the oath.
Portland's "super-woke" DSAs, who have demanded that prospective beneficiaries of their endorsements adhere to every one of the party's numerous enlightened positions, should allow favored candidates at least a little bit of normal-level woke-ness (or even napping) on less important issues.
It's hard to believe that the Charter Commission--one of its members a DSA member, another a sympathizer--didn't know what they were doing when they said the council/mayoral elections would continue to be "non-partisan." This is just one of the many little gotchas in the document, engineered, explicitly, to supercharge "minorities," including political parties. You voted for it; you got it.
No one in legacy media is remotely interested in the fallout from the radical charter; they ignored it when it was being cooked by the City Club, Coalition of Communities of Color, and their plant, Julia Meier (aka, She Who Must Never Be Mentioned). They cut off any intelligent debate of the weird aspects of the charter; they endorsed it and allowed the bureaucrats to trundle out the vote. They're ignoring it now.
But there's good news: in a mere nine years the charter will be reconsidered.
Hello Joe McCarthy! This article tries to destroy by innuendo: "Some people do this and they seem to be up to no good!" Who are these people? Name names, give facts. What have they done and how does that relate to the Democratic Socialists of America? I am not a fan of our city government but throwing around suspicions that it might be subverted by socialists without naming names is just too easy and too cheap. Unfortunately, it's not just fear mongering from the right. Even people who call themselves Socialists have only vague ideas of what they are talking about. Socialism is the first stage of the Communist Revolution where the Capitalists are overthrown, expropriated and the state takes over the ownership of the means of production, meaning private corporations are nationalized. Nobody in this country in his or her right mind (with the exception of Donald Trump who actively takes government ownership in private enterprises) would advocate something like that. Our "Socialists" are actually Social Democrats who do not want to abolish Capitalism. They want to humanize it with laws that protect the environment, the rights and economic well-being of working people and support general social welfare and justice for the society we're all living in.
The names are in the article: the four councilors are identified by name, from the chapter's own published materials. Every claim is sourced to documents the organization itself made public: its endorsement terms, its recruiting page, its slate announcements. That is the opposite of McCarthy, whose method was a list he never produced. Nothing here asks you to trust me; the sources are linked and you can read them yourself. On the taxonomy of socialism I take no position, and the article says so. The offense is never the idea. It is the method: binding commitments to a private organization, made before the public oath, disclosed nowhere the voter looks. That question would stand if the organization were a chamber of commerce.
Thank you for such a piece that is calm, collected, and concise (with forgiveness for the intentional alliteration).
There is a lot of focus on the emotionality of the actors themselves - some of them bringing on visceral reactions from their craft. They want to get the audience’s attention and they are succeeding at that.
I appreciate the different approach as politics gets people to vote out of emotion. This is how dictators have slicked their way into power. People don’t want to take the time to learn about the production as a whole - they just want the result of what they think will make them feel good. Due to social media it has become all about instant gratification; select the person that makes you feel the best rather than considering what is being done to make you feel this way.
To quote Marshall McLuhan, the medium is the message. Thank you for putting the work into helping us understand the medium.