Candidates aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America are surging to victory on the claim that they are proponents of “a government by, for and of the working class” that will wrest power from both “far-right Republicans and corporate Democrats.”
Here’s the problem. Most of the leadership of the D.S.A. and a majority of voters who back its candidates are in no way working class. Instead, an elite made up of well-educated professionals dominates this insurgency.
The D.S.A.’s agenda, in turn, is packed with policies supported by left-wing liberals, white progressives in particular, but strongly opposed by both white and minority working-class (defined, in pollster shorthand, as non-college-educated) voters. These policies include more or less open borders, defunding the police and abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as well as support for an array of transgender rights.
In 2021 the D.S.A. surveyed its members and found that 85 percent were non-Hispanic white (far more than the national population, which was 57.8 percent white in 2020, according to the census); 9 percent were Hispanic, 5 percent Asian American and 4 percent Black.
Four percent of the members held blue-collar jobs, according to the survey, the most recent publicly available. Nearly six out of 10 D.S.A. members held professional jobs (58 percent); the remainder were students or were unemployed or disabled.
D.S.A. members were far better educated than the average American. More than 80 percent of members who were 25 years old or older had college degrees (just more than double the percentage for the United States as a whole), and 35 percent had a master’s degree, a doctorate or a professional degree (again, more than double the American average). Sixty percent identified as agnostic or atheist (with the American average, taken at its most generous, at less than half that).
In 2021 the survey found that 64 percent of members “identified as male, 27 percent as female and 10 percent as nonbinary or other” and that “L.G.B.T.Q.I.A.+ membership has tripled, from 10 percent in the previous two surveys to 32 percent today.”
In light of the D.S.A.’s ideological commitments and demographics, I asked Priscilla Yeverino, the D.S.A.’s national communications director, whether it was legitimate for the D.S.A. to claim the working-class mantle.
She replied:
Our organization is rooted in and led by the working class across the United States. Policies like universal health care, free college, affordable child care and higher taxes on the wealthy are overwhelmingly popular with working people.
To buttress her claims, Yeverino cited an August 22 to 24, 2025, Data for Progress survey of 1,257 likely voters, which found:
Democrats prefer democratic socialism to capitalism by a 58-point margin.
Democrats prefer left-wing political figures similar to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders and Zohran Mamdani over establishment politicians similar to Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries and Nancy Pelosi by a 20-point margin.
Democrats (+61) and independents (+9) prefer a candidate who fights for the rights of trans folks.
Our economic system is rigged and should be replaced”: +68 among Black voters, +47 among Latino voters and +42 among white voters.
It’s true, Yeverino acknowledged,
that a decade ago, when our membership was around 6,000 people, our organization looked very different. Since then, we have grown dramatically and become far more diverse, a trend that has continued even this year. Today, our 110,000 members are united by a commitment to organizing around the values, politics and policies that resonate with working-class people across the country.
She is right that Democratic voters prefer socialism to capitalism. In 2010, Gallup found that positive views of socialism among Democrats rose to 66 percent from 50 percent while positive views of capitalism fell to 42 percent from 51 percent.
These are intriguing numbers, but they neither support nor discredit the assertion that the D.S.A.’s ideology and demographics make its claims to be a working-class movement illegitimate. That there is strong support for socialism in Democratic ranks does not mean that the D.S.A. should (or should not) lead the charge.
Even so, the D.S.A. has capitalized on the pro-socialist views of Democratic voters to lay claim to their support by brandishing a forged proletarian résumé.
Take transgender rights. Democrats are more supportive of them than Republicans or independents are, but Democrats’ support on some of the most disputed specific issues is declining.
Pew Research found that from 2022 to 2025, the share of Democrats who said they would “require trans athletes to compete on teams that match their sex at birth” rose to 45 percent from 37 percent, the share who would “make it illegal for health professionals to provide minors with medical care for a gender transition” rose from to 35 from 26 percent and the percentage who would “require trans people to use public bathrooms that match their sex at birth” rose to 25 from 20 percent.
These three restrictive policies, all of which are opposed by the D.S.A., have the support of majorities or strong pluralities of all voters.
Most important, surveys consistently show that non-college voters are significantly more opposed to more progressive transgender policies than college-educated voters.
A May 2025 Gallup survey found, for example, that 61 percent of college grads agreed that students “should only be allowed to play on sports teams that match their birth gender,” while 31 percent said they should be able to play on the team that matches “their current gender identity” (a 30-point gap).
In contrast, voters with high school diplomas or less backed the requirement that students may play only on teams “that match their birth gender” by a 48-point margin (72 to 24) and those with some college by a 63-point margin (78 to 15).
All of which suggests that the D.S.A.’s March 31 declaration, “We Will Not Be Erased,” would be met with some skepticism if not hostility by working-class voters disdainful of the D.S.A.’s commitment of support for “bodily autonomy, for moving past arbitrary restrictions and conservative norms around gender and family and for the right of all to obtain medical care.”
Yeverino suggested that the upscale demographics of D.S.A. members in 2021 may be different now, given the organization’s rapid growth.
More recent membership surveys conducted by various local D.S.A. chapters, however, suggest that there has been little change in member characteristics.
In February 2025 the Central New Jersey D.S.A. chapter published results of a membership survey that found that “69.5 percent identify as white only; 8.0 percent identify as Hispanic or Latinx, less than the N.J. demographic of 22.7 percent; and 4.5 percent identify as Black, less than the N.J. demographic of 10.6 percent.”
Nearly four out of 10 (39.3 percent) identified as anarchists, followed by Marxists at 35.7 percent and 10.7 percent as democratic socialists. The study’s authors noted:
The chapter is underrepresented by individuals identifying as nonwhite Hispanic/Latinx and Black/of African descent. Hispanic and Black communities are most affected by capitalism and have unique challenges white organizers may not recognize or properly address.
Underrepresentation leads to a burden of diversity within the chapter, referring to an unfair expectation that marginalized individuals take responsibility for addressing diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility, often without recognition. We strongly recommend the reading of “Toward a Socialist Theory of Racism.”
There are other policies in addition to transgender rights that separate the socialist organization from the working class.
Take immigration and border enforcement. The D.S.A.’s platform declares workers should be allowed “to freely migrate between countries to seek employment without restrictive immigration controls” and calls for an “immediate amnesty for all immigrants, regardless of current immigration status.”
Polls consistently show non-college voters opposed to unrestricted immigration. In 2024 the Cooperative Election Study asked voters whether they supported completion of a wall along the border with Mexico. Those with a high school diploma or less favored the wall by 62.2 percent, and just 40.8 percent with postgraduate degrees shared that view.
The liberal stands on immigration, transgender rights, abolishing ICE and defunding the police are policies supported largely by a well-educated elite of white people holding professional jobs who dominate the D.S.A. They are decidedly not the policies sought by the bulk of construction workers riding the subway to get to their job sites by 7 a.m.
Perhaps the strongest evidence disputing the D.S.A.’s claim to represent the working class can be found in the election results of its primary victories in three New York congressional districts.
Take the victory in the 13th Congressional District of Darializa Avila Chevalier, a Democratic Socialist activist backed by Mayor Zohran Mamdani of New York. She narrowly beat Adriano Espaillat, the chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, 49.4 to 45.9 percent.
A Times analysis of the outcome shows that Chevalier won majority-college-educated areas 58 to 38 and higher-income areas 51 to 45, while Espaillat won lower-income areas 52 to 42 and majority-Hispanic areas by 56 to 40. Black precincts were close, as Chevalier carried them by two points, 48 to 46.
The same income and education patterns emerged in the Seventh District, where Claire Valdez, the D.S.A. candidate, crushed Antonio Reynoso, the Brooklyn borough president, 56.1 to 35.8. Valdez won 62 to 28 in the district’s high-income neighborhoods and 64 to 27 in its high-education areas, while Reynoso carried the low-income sections 63 to 31.
Finally, take the 10th Congressional District primary, in which Brad Lander, who was also backed by Mamdani, beat the incumbent, Dan Goldman, 65.8 to 34. Lander carried high-income and high-education precincts 70 to 30, while Goldman won low-income neighborhoods 57 to 43.
The pattern of voting in New York’s June 23 primary reflects a recent history of left-wing candidates winning with upscale coalitions.
On June 27, 2018, City and State, a publication that specializes in New York politics, analyzed Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s defeat that month of Joseph Crowley, a 10-term incumbent and the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, saying, “Ocasio-Cortez’s largest margin of support came from neighborhoods in western Queens like Astoria and Sunnyside that have lower Latino populations and higher white populations.”
Subsequently, Ocasio-Cortez joined the ranks of members representing decisively Democratic seats, easily winning re-election (69.2 percent in 2024), although 61 other Democrats won with higher shares, from 70 to 83 percent, along with four others who had no opposition at all.
Despite the ideological and demographic conflicts between the D.S.A.’s stated purpose and the substance of its agenda, Mamdani reasserted the D.S.A.’s tie to the working class in remarks after his endorsed candidates swept the primaries. “What their successes represent is a shift in the balance of power between working people and special interests,” he said. “Finally, working people are going to have more of a voice in the halls of power, wherever that hall may be — be it Albany or be it in D.C.”
Mamdani elaborated on this in an appearance last Sunday on ABC. “A democratic socialist can get elected anywhere across this country for any position,” he told Jonathan Karl. “I think we are seeing a hunger that is not just felt by New Yorkers but frankly by Americans from coast to coast for a new kind of politics, one that puts working people at the heart of it.”
There is no question that the voter mobilization skills demonstrated by the D.S.A. and Mamdani far exceed those of traditional Democrats. In addition, the D.S.A. has awakened a key constituency, the universe of young people with college degrees struggling to find rewarding work, the so-called precariat.
The D.S.A. has also benefited immensely from growing animosity to Israel, especially among Democratic voters, in the aftermath of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and Israel’s sustained assault on Gaza.
In a Feb. 27 analysis, “Israelis No Longer Ahead in Americans’ Middle East Sympathies,” Gallup reported that 41 percent of Americans said they sympathized more with the Palestinians in the Middle East, while 36 percent sympathized more with the Israelis.
This is a huge shift, as Gallup noted: “From 2001 to 2025, Israelis consistently held double-digit leads in Americans’ Middle East sympathies, with the gap averaging 43 points between 2001 and 2018.”
The ascendance of D.S.A. candidates within the Democratic ranks virtually assures that debate over Israel and the Palestinians in the 2028 party platform — traditionally a statement of support for Israel — will be a political blood bath.
Mamdani and the D.S.A. have demonstrated their political prowess. The question for the average Democratic activist is whether the D.S.A. is helping or hurting the Democratic Party in its struggle to gain control of the House, Senate and presidency.
On the plus side, there is no question that the D.S.A. has converted uncounted nonvoters into voters and those men and women can help tilt close general elections for every office, from City Council to president, into the Democratic column.
On the negative side, the D.S.A. is pushing positions on immigration, gender and policing that give Republicans opportunities to drive wedges between left and centrist Democrats.
In addition, Jim Kessler, the executive vice president for policy at Third Way, a centrist advocacy group often critical of the Democrats’ progressive wing, wrote on X:
What’s notable but not written about is that nearly all of the D.S.A.’s serious primary campaigns are aimed at members of the House Progressive Caucus, not the more moderate House New Democrats. Support for Medicare for All, Green New Deal, Abolish ICE is no protection.
I asked Kessler to back up what he posted, and he said sent a detailed reply:
Adriano Espaillat, Diana DeGette, Dan Goldman and Grace Meng (who survived against a D.S.A. candidate) are all members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and all co-sponsors of Medicare for All.
Goldman called for abolishing ICE in January. So has DeGette. Espaillat did so in 2018. Meng called for reform of ICE. Goldman introduced legislation for a Green New Deal in housing: DeGette is all over climate as a Coloradan. Espaillat cosponsored the Green New Deal. Meng supports the Green New Deal.
In other words, the D.S.A. is forcing incumbent liberal Democrats to spend money in primaries in districts that would remain Democratic after the general election, regardless of the nominee. Not to mention the fact that the votes cast by the primary winner on health care, climate change and ICE would be almost identical, no matter who wins.
And all of this at a cost of cash that could be spent in support of Democrats facing strong Republican challengers, time that could be used for legislating. The costs of the inevitable intraparty resentment and bitterness that follow primary contests — not to mention the damage of raising the prominence of issues that will only serve to taint Democrats of all stripes — could be high.
Since I have given plenty of space to my own diatribe, the last word goes to Yeverino, the D.S.A. spokeswoman, who directly challenged Kessler’s argument, saying:
DeGette has taken over $1.5 million from the Israel lobby and Jared Moskowitz more than $700,000. Espaillat more than $3 million, as well as $250,000 from real estate developers and lobbyists. We do not recognize these elected officials as progressive.
The first slate of democratic socialist House reps ousted moderates. A.O.C. (2018) and Cori Bush (2020) defeated longtime political dynasties. Jamaal Bowman also won on a plank to the left of the incumbent.
Furthermore, our state, municipal and citywide elections prove the opposite true — we run on unapologetic socialist campaigns with working-class politics, and we beat establishment Democrats often.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
The post Can You Really Be a Working-Class Party if There Are Very Few Workers in Your Party? appeared first on New York Times.
