I was wonderfully amused by Michael Bouldin being called a "party hack," something that is about as far from the mark as I can imagine. Perhaps it indicates a certain coming of age for Michael, reaching the first point in his life where he is called a "party hack."

"Party hack" is a term I have heard thrown around in NYC almost indiscriminantly. It is one of those words that insinuates more than it really means and has been overused to the point of meaninglessness. I reminds me of in elementary school when the standard insult was "fag." In those days "fag" was as overused by school children in America as "party hack" is overused in NYC's political scene.

But what interested me was the fact that Michael traced the origin of that comment to a gentleman who is active with Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). DSA is a small group of professed Democrats who believe in socialism. They are not crazies like the Sparticus Society people, but they are genuine idealists trying to balance the ideals of socialism and democracy. As they put it on their website:

Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.

Some 20 years ago or so I briefly joined DSA. It was one of those moments when I got so fed up with the American political system that I was looking for a better alternative. Now pure socialism has tended to be a complete failure. Either it has led to poverty and starvation as in North Korea, or it evolves into something clearly capitalistic as in China. Small scale communities can successfully run themselves on socialist lines, but the dynamics of large scale nations does not seem compatible with pure socialism.

However, a mixed economy with a democratic political system seems to work exceedingly well. From Holland to Scandanavia you have evolving experiments in mixing socialism and capitalism. Their economies are robust and their systems democratic to a degree that America is not currently living up to.

When looked at that way, Democratic Socialism seemed attractive to me. So, about 20 years ago, I joined DSA.

I didn't stay. What I discovered was that, at the time at least, it was composed of a bunch of squabbling, dogmatic fools that left me even more disgusted than mainstream American political parties. In much the same way that is what turns me off to the Greens today: excessive dogma and insufficient practicality. Those are reasons I dislike the Republican party of today as well. Why should I like those qualities in the left when I dislike them in the right?

I have had no real experience with the DSA since then. I have no idea whether they have evolved since my brief experience with them so long ago. But what I have learned over the years is that good ideas do not always mean an effective and inclusive political philosophy. That is the lesson that DSA certainly needed to learn 20 years ago and I think the Greens need to learn today.

By comparison I find Michael Bouldin, purported "neo-Bohemian" and "party hack," to be pragmatic, open to a wide range of political ideas (once you get past his grumpy needling) and willing to put his actions where his mouth is more than most fellow leftists. For now, despite earlier flirting with both DSA and the Greens, these days I stick with groups like NDM and DFNYC and Democratic politicians like Howard Dean, Chris Owens and Bill Batson rather than Green and DSA.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | | | | |