1 Trending: AOC’s ‘Woke 1’ Comment Reveals The Left Is Planning To Make ‘Woke 2’ Even Worse

2 Trending: Texts: Fauci And Friends Covered Up Concerns About The Covid Vax And Miscarriages

3 Trending: Freezing Your Eggs Is Bad Biology. Doing It At 36 Like AOC Is Even Worse

4 Trending: New Jersey’s ‘Software Error’ That Registered 6,600 Noncitizens Is No Accident

The Problem With DSA Democrats Isn’t Socialism, It’s Third-Worldism

Decades of immigration from Muslim-majority Third World countries has turned the Democrats into the party of militant anti-Americanism.

Share Article on Facebook

Share Article on Twitter

Share Article on Truth Social

Share Article via Email

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. Indeed, 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, and the set of priorities that determines voting patterns is 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........

© The Federalist