Differences in foreign policy between the Democrat Party and insurgent left-wing activists associated with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) have focused on criticism of Israel’s “disproportionate” response in Gaza to the Hamas terrorist attack of October 7, 2023, criticism that has expanded into calling into question Israel’s right to exist “from the river to the sea.”
Read more Wondering about Trump and Iran and Everything
Several incumbent members of Congress have been defeated in primaries by these insurgents, most prominently Abdul El-Sayed’s narrow victory over Rep. Haley Stevens for the U.S. Senate nomination in Michigan. El-Sayed has claimed not to be a DSA member, but he had spoken at DSA meeting long before he started his campaign. El-Sayed has called Israel’s operations in Gaza against Hamas “genocide.” And antisemitic socialist Hasan Piker, who wants to “end the American Empire,” campaigned for him. Rep. Stevens, in contrast, had been a supporter of Israel and voted against the House amendment to cut off military aid to the embattled Jewish nation. Also in Michigan, Rep. Shri Thanedar was taken down by DSA-backed Donavan McKinney, who has also talked of genocide in Gaza and wants U.S. aid shifted from arming Israel to UN programs in Gaza long compromised by Hamas.
DSA member Melat Kiros won her primary challenge to Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), who had been a supporter of Israel before the primary (but voted against military aid after her defeat). Exactly one month after the 2023 Hamas attack, Kiros wrote “by conflating ‘calls for the elimination of the Israeli state’ with anti-Semitism, you delegitimize any solution that forces Israel to reckon with its colonial role in Palestine, including one-state solutions… one state, under the historic Palestine, where all citizens are equal under the rule of law, regardless of religion or ethnicity.” Such a one-state solution would take Israel off the map and drive Jews to seek sanctuary elsewhere, as rule by Hamas truly would be genocide.
This division over support for Israel against terrorism has blurred as the Democrats and DSA have joined in their blanket condemnation of the U.S.-Israeli air war to disarm Iran. The Democrats voted unanimously in both Congressional chambers (except for Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) on Jully 23 to unilaterally end the war by ceasing all U.S. actions. However, there are two even larger strategic issues that divide the two liberal-left parties which have not drawn much attention: NATO support for Ukraine and the rise of China.
One of the first bills the Democrats offered after winning the 2018 midterms was the NATO Support Act, which declared “the President shall not withdraw the United States from NATO.” This was in response to allegations that President Donald Trump was about to do just that due to frustrations over the low defense spending of most NATO members. That there was no real party split over the value of NATO was expressed by the 357-22 vote (though the 22 Republican “no” votes were disturbing as heralding an “isolationist” split in the GOP).
This April, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) took to the floor to state, “Conflict still grips regions across the globe. Russia grows more aggressive. The Middle East remains unstable. And the future of the transatlantic alliance hangs in the balance. Today, the visit of King Charles III should serve as a reminder to the President of the United States and to every elected official in this country: friends and allies matter. And most of all for the security of Europe, NATO matters…To walk away from NATO would be a terrible mistake that will reverberate for generations and make Americans far less safe.” House Democratic leader Hakeem Jefferies has also expressed a desire to “strengthen our relationships with Western allies at a time when they are facing unprecedented turmoil and forcefully push back against Russian aggression in Ukraine and beyond.” On the eve of the Ankara NATO summit, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, praised NATO members for increasing their defense spending in the push towards the 5% of GDP goal set by President Trump and called for more support for Ukraine.
But the DSA has a different view of who the aggressor is in Europe. “We recognize that the expansion of NATO and the aggressive approach of Western nations have helped cause the crisis and we demand an end to NATO expansion.” The DSA says “no to NATO and its imperialist expansionism and disastrous interventions across the world.” Thus, DSA accepts one of Putin’s primary “justifications” for attacking Ukraine. Yet NATO “expanded” when free nations with decades, often centuries, of painful experience, asked to join a collective security organization to protect against a revanchist Russia which has always expanded by fire and sword. Putin has proven these concerns were valid.
Read more Freedom Dies When Legitimate Dissent Is Branded ‘Anti-Tech Extremism’
“Disguised as a defense pact, NATO is a tool for imperialist expansion and plundering, serving primarily in defense of capitalism and Atlanticist international dominance,” declares the DSA. “Workers in the United States and abroad have nothing to gain from militarist and interventionist foreign policy crafted by elites in Washington, Ankara, Warsaw, and elsewhere.” But the menacing “elsewhere” does not seem to include aggressive elites in Moscow or Beijing.
There is a broad bipartisan consensus that the U.S. must respond to the rising Chinese economic and technology challenge to protect both American prosperity and security. The DSA’s opposition to trade and industrial policies to meet this threat is openly expressed as a campaign “to end nationalistic posturing toward China” and “U.S. escalation” towards a new Cold War meant to “dominate China.” Key legislation passed by the Democratic Congress and signed by President Joe Biden in 2022 was the Chips and Science Act. It started out as the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act co-sponsored by Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Todd Young (R-FL) and included the Chips for America Act sponsored by Senators Mark Warner (D-VA) and John Cornyn (R-TX). When reconciled with the House version, it emerged from conference and was enacted by large bipartisan majorities.
The DSA opposed this legislation. “We believe industrial policy should not be built on imperial ambitions…. We believe working people in the U.S. and elsewhere deserve policies that invest in public works programs,” argued an open letter to Congress from the DSA International Committee, which claimed the legislation “overwhelmingly focuses on preserving U.S. global hegemony by fabricating narratives aimed at painting China as a threat… in an effort to undermine an increasingly multipolar world.” No mention anywhere by DSA that Beijing’s intensive drive to dominate strategic industries and minerals is openly built on imperial ambitions.
As DSA opposes strengthening America’s economic foundations, it also vehemently opposes using the country’s wealth to defend its national interests in Asia. Coinciding with its campaign against the Chips and Science Act, the DSA International Committee organized an “anti-war conference” focusing on the “ongoing contemporary struggles, and local resistance by anti-war organizers, indigenous activists, environmentalists, socialists, and other progressive forces in the Pacific opposed to US militarism, occupation, and imperialism.”
Pew Research shows there is still a bipartisan distrust of Beijing, with 71% of Americans considering China a competitor or even an enemy. Bipartisan support for NATO is also strong. A poll conducted by the Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs just before the Ankara summit found “Majorities of Republicans (55%) and Democrats (61%) and a plurality of Independents (49%) say the US alliance with Europe puts the United States in a stronger position in the world, while about one in 10 across partisan affiliations say it makes the United States weaker.” On major strategic issues, the gap between Democrat and Republican regulars is much smaller than the gap between Democrats and the DSA.
Most Americans understand that their personal success is tied to the success of their country in a contentious world. We really are all in this together. This realization should lead to national security policies that leave partisanship at the water’s edge.
William R. Hawkins is a former economics professor who has worked for several Washington think tanks and on the staff of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee. He has written widely on international economics and national security issues for both professional and popular publications, including for the Army War College, the U.S. Naval Institute, and the National Defense University, among others.
Read more Why We Fight
Image: David Shankbone