When the Label No Longer Tells the Whole Story

Labels can sometimes assist with classification. We use them every day. Food labels tell us what is in the food we eat. Nutrition labels tell us how much sugar, sodium, fat and other ingredients we are consuming.

Lydia Alston-Murphy

Prescription labels tell us how and when to take our medication and warn us that taking it incorrectly can cause serious harm, even death.

In politics, we use labels too.

Democrat. Republican. Conservative. Liberal.

But increasingly, we are hearing other labels: progressive, democratic socialist, socialist and communist.

Those words are often used as warnings. Sometimes they describe what a candidate actually believes. Other times, they seem to be used simply to frighten voters away from a candidate or an idea.

But I wonder whether those labels are having the same effect they once did.

And maybe the reason is simple: people are struggling.

Before deciding whether a label should scare us, we should probably understand what it means.

Socialism and communism are not the same thing. Socialism generally calls for more public or shared control over parts of the economy and how resources are distributed. Communism goes much further. In its traditional form, it calls for common ownership of the major means of production rather than private ownership.

Even the word socialist can hide some important differences. Progressives generally want significant changes within our current economic system—things like stronger worker protections, higher taxes on the wealthy, expanded health coverage and greater investment in education. Democratic socialists tend to go further. They question whether too much economic power is concentrated in private hands and support giving the public more say over major economic institutions.

And having government programs does not automatically make a country socialist. We already have Social Security, Medicare, public schools, public libraries, police and fire departments, and we still live in a largely capitalist economy.

So maybe the more useful question is not, “What label does this candidate have?”

Maybe the question should be, “What is this candidate proposing?”

That question seems particularly relevant after what has happened in several Democratic primaries this year.

In Colorado, democratic socialist Melat Kiros, a first-time congressional candidate, defeated longtime Rep. Diana DeGette in the Democratic primary for Colorado's 1st Congressional District.

In New York, democratic socialist Claire Valdez defeated Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso for the Democratic nomination to succeed longtime Rep. Nydia Velázquez. Valdez was supported by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Sen. Bernie Sanders, while Velázquez had endorsed Reynoso.

In Philadelphia, progressive and self-described democratic socialist Chris Rabb defeated better-funded and establishment-backed opponents by about 15 percentage points in the Democratic primary for an open congressional seat. His campaign argued that the Democratic Party had become more responsive to donors than to voters.

Then came Michigan. Progressive climate organizer William Lawrence, a co-founder of the Sunrise Movement, defeated two more moderate opponents for the Democratic nomination in Michigan's competitive 7th Congressional District. He now faces Republican incumbent Tom Barrett in November.

And recently, Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan defeated centrist U.S. Rep. Angie Craig in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate. Flanagan ran against corporate influence and received support from prominent progressive leaders, including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

These candidates are not identical, and neither are their platforms. Some identify as democratic socialists. Some are progressives. Their districts and their voters are different.

But their victories raise a question that I think the Democratic Party—and maybe both political parties—should take seriously:

Why are voters responding to them?

I don't believe millions of Americans suddenly woke up one morning, read Karl Marx and decided they wanted to overthrow capitalism.

think something much more practical may be happening.

People are looking at the price of groceries.

They are looking at housing costs.

They are looking at health care.

They are looking at child care.

They are looking at wages that do not always seem to keep pace with what it costs to live.

And some of them may be saying, “What we have been doing isn't working for me.”

When people believe the existing system is working, they have a reason to protect it.

When they believe it isn't, trying something different becomes less frightening.

That does not mean every progressive or democratic socialist proposal is a good one.

It certainly does not mean voters should stop asking hard questions.

Quite the opposite.

If someone proposes universal child care, Medicare for All, government-built housing, free public college or another major expansion of government, we should ask:

How much will it cost?

Who will pay for it?

Who will benefit?

Can it be sustained?

What are the trade-offs?

And, most importantly, will it actually work?

Those questions matter far more to me than whether someone can attach the word socialist to the proposal.

There is another side to this political story, too.

Wisconsin provided an important counterexample this week. Democratic socialist Francesca Hong appeared positioned to continue the progressive winning streak in the Democratic primary for governor. Instead, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, a more moderate Democrat, narrowly defeated her. Crowley campaigned in part on the argument that he was better positioned to win a closely divided state in November.

That matters.

It tells us that voters are not simply marching in one ideological direction. They are making different judgments in different places. Some are choosing insurgent progressives. Others are choosing more moderate candidates whom they believe may have a better chance of winning or governing.

And that is exactly why political labels alone tell us so little.

of telling voters that a candidate is a socialist, communist, radical, MAGA, liberal or extremist and expecting the label to make the decision for them, political leaders should explain what that person actually intends to do.

Give us the proposal.

Give us the numbers.

Tell us who pays.

Tell us who benefits.

Tell us what we may have to give up.

Tell us whether it has worked somewhere else.

Then trust voters to decide.

Because when someone is worried about paying the rent, buying groceries or covering a medical bill, calling an idea “socialist” may not end the conversation anymore.

It may cause that person to ask a different question:

“But will it help me?”

People may not be becoming socialists at all.

They may simply be tired of being told to fear something different when what they have now is not working for them.

~

Lydia Alston-Murphy, is a political editorial writer for Minority Reporter. Her articles focus on politics in all levels of government as well as every day issues. Email: alstonmurphy@gmail.com