What you missed at the socialism 2025 annual conference
Welcome to the Socialism 2025 annual conference.
The only thing missing was a keynote speech by New York City's Democratic candidate for mayor, Zohran Mamdani, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. Maybe he'll do it next year, when he's mayor and the event might even be in the socialist paradise of New York.
The unofficial theme of this year's conference was probably best stated by University of Minnesota professor Melanie Yazzie, who told the conferees, 'I hope to dismantle the United States. I hope you seek to dismantle the United States.' The audience applauded.
Gotta say, the socialists have made significant gains dismantling the country over the last decade or two. But they hit a wall last November.
Even so, socialism is having a moment. A recent survey conducted by YouGov for the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute found 62 percent of Americans under the age of 30 have a 'favorable' view of socialism, and 34 percent have a favorable view of communism.
An estimated 2,000 participants attended the conference at the Haytt Regency McCormick Place hotel — even socialists like to plan their revolution in style. And there was no shortage of issues to discuss at the conference. By my count there were about 160 sessions over the four-day event (full list here). Had you been there you might have attended:
' From the River to the World ' — For the past few years we've heard protesters chanting 'From the River to the Sea,' described by the American Jewish Committee as 'a phrase that can be used to call for the elimination of the State of Israel and/or ethnic cleansing of Jews living there, to be replaced with Palestinian control over the entire territory from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.'
Apparently by substituting the word 'world,' the socialists think many pro-Palestinian protesters need to be more ambitious.
'Marxism Education Series' — The agenda described this session as ' a cluster of courses on Marxist theory and history designed to introduce and deepen the understanding of Marxism for activists and organizers.'
'Defeating the End Times Triad: Christian Zionists, Christian Nationalists, and Technofacists' — Five panelists discussed how 'our dystopian conjuncture [of] Christian Zionism, Christian nationalism and End-Times technofascism work together to further genocidal aggression in Palestine alongside the entrenchment of authoritarian repression in the US and worldwide.' I probably would have attended just to find out what 'End-Times technofacism' is.
' Deny, Defend, Depose: Health Struggle After Luigi ' — Most people were horrified when UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was fatally shot, allegedly by Luigi Mangione. But some Americans, especially younger adults, cheered Mangione as a hero. The Cato Institute survey mentioned above also reported, 'Notably, a majority (54 percent) of strong liberals believe that violence against the rich is sometimes justified, compared to 9 percent of strong conservatives.'
In this session a three-person panel described 'what the fight for health communism may look like under this new [Trump] regime.' Apparently, the speakers weren't renouncing Mangione-type violence as part of their 'fight.'
' DIY Abortion ' — and if that sounds dangerous, it is.
Interestingly, the conference had a code of conduct where organizers pleaded with conference attendees to behave themselves better than they do during street protests. There would be no 'Intimidating, harassing, abusive, discriminatory, derogatory or demeaning speech,' or 'Real or implied threat of physical harm,' and no 'Sustained disruption of talks or other events.' That last one is odd, since disrupting talks is one of the left's standard practices.
And just to make sure everyone is safe, there's this: 'Attendees are required to wear a mask (N95 or K95) over their mouth and nose while indoors at the conference.'
While much of what went on at the Socialism 2025 conference would strike most Americans as extreme, even fringe, socialist sympathizers in Congress — Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Pamala Jayapal (D-Wash.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), and Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) — are the real energy and drive behind today's Democratic Party. And now add Zohran Mamdani.
If you're sorry you missed this year's Socialism 2025 conference, take heart. You'll have another chance to sip fine wine with the socialists. The Democratic Socialists of America, boasting 90,000 members, will have their biennial convention Aug. 8-10 in Chicago (where else?).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
22 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Republicans and independents have warmed on Supreme Court since 2022 abortion ruling: AP-NORC poll
WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans' views of the Supreme Court have moderated somewhat since the court's standing dropped sharply after its ruling overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022, according to a new poll. But concern that the court has too much power is rising, fueled largely by Democrats. The survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that about a third of U.S. adults have 'hardly any confidence at all' in the court, but that's down from 43% three years ago. As the new AP-NORC polling tracker shows, about half of Americans have 'only some confidence' in the court, up from 39% in July 2022, while a relatively small number, about 1 in 5, have 'a great deal of confidence,' which hasn't shifted meaningfully in the past few years. The moderate increase in confidence is driven by Republicans and independents. Still, views of the nation's highest court remain more negative than they were as recently as early 2022, before the high-profile ruling that overturned the constitutional right to abortion. An AP-NORC poll conducted in February 2022 found that only around one-quarter of Americans had hardly any confidence in the court's justices. Persistent divide between Republicans and Democrats The partisan divide has been persistent and stark, particularly since the Dobbs ruling, when Democrats' confidence in the nine justices plummeted. The survey shows Republicans are happier than Democrats and independents with the conservative-dominated court, which includes three justices appointed by President Donald Trump, a Republican. Few Republicans, just 8%, view the court dimly, down from about 1 in 5 in July 2022. For independents, the decline was from 45% just after the Dobbs ruling to about 3 in 10 now. The views among Democrats were more static, but they are also slightly less likely to have low confidence in the justices, falling from 64% in summer 2022 to 56% now. In recent years, the court has produced historic victories for Republican policy priorities. The justices overturned Roe, leading to abortion bans in many Republican-led states, ended affirmative action in college admissions, expanded gun rights , restricted environmental regulations and embraced claims of religious discrimination. Many of the court's major decisions from this year are broadly popular, according to a Marquette Law School poll conducted in July. But other polling suggests that most don't think the justices are ruling neutrally. A recent Fox News poll found that about 8 in 10 registered voters think partisanship plays a role in the justices' decisions either 'frequently' or 'sometimes.' Last year, the conservative majority endorsed a robust view of presidential immunity and allowed Trump to avoid a criminal trial on election interference charges . In recent months, the justices on the right handed Trump a string of victories, including a ruling that limits federal judges' power to issue nationwide injunctions . Katharine Stetson, a self-described constitutional conservative from Paradise, Nevada, said she is glad that the court has reined in 'the rogue judges, the district judges around the country' who have blocked some Trump initiatives. Stetson, 79, said she is only disappointed it took so long. 'Finally. Why did they allow it get out of hand?' she said. Growing concerns the court is too powerful Several recent decisions were accompanied by stinging dissents from liberal justices who complained the court was giving Trump too much leeway and taking power for itself. 'Perhaps the degradation of our rule-of-law regime would happen anyway. But this court's complicity in the creation of a culture of disdain for lower courts, their rulings, and the law (as they interpret it) will surely hasten the downfall of our governing institutions, enabling our collective demise,' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote when the court ruled on nationwide injunctions. The July AP-NORC poll found a growing similar sentiment. About 4 in 10 U.S. adults now say the court has 'too much' power in the way the federal government operates these days. In April, about 3 in 10 people were concerned about the court's power. The shift is largely due to movement among Democrats, rising from about one-third in April to more than half now. Debra A. Harris, a 60-year-old retired state government worker who now lives in Winter Haven, Florida, said the court's decisions in recent years 'just disgust me to my soul.' Harris said the court has changed in recent years, with the addition of the three justices appointed by Trump. 'I find so much of what they're doing is based so much on the ideology of the Republican ticket,' Harris said, singling out last year's immunity decision. 'We don't have kings. We don't have dictators.' George Millsaps, who flew military helicopters and served in Iraq, said the justices should have stood up to Trump in recent months, including on immigration, reducing the size of the federal workforce and unwinding the Education Department. 'But they're bowing down, just like Congress apparently is now, too,' said Millsaps, a 67-year-old resident of Floyd County in rural southwest Virginia. ___ The AP-NORC poll of 1,437 adults was conducted July 10-14, using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.6 percentage points. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at .
25 minutes ago
Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez becomes the first Democrat to enter the 2026 governor race
MADISON, Wis. -- Wisconsin Democratic Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, a former emergency room nurse, announced Friday that she is running for governor, the day after the incumbent decided against seeking a third term. Rodriguez is the first Democrat to officially enter the 2026 race. Several others are considering running after Gov. Tony Evers said Thursday he was bowing out. Wisconsin's 2026 governor's race is open with no incumbent running for the first time since 2010. Rodriguez, who almost certainly will face numerous Democratic primary opponents, has vowed to push back against Republican President Donald Trump's administration. 'We've got a maniac in the White House,' Rodriguez said in a campaign launch video. 'His tariffs are killing our farmers and his policies are hurting our kids.' Rodriguez has been lieutenant governor since 2023, after previously serving one two-year term in the state Assembly representing suburban Milwaukee, where she lives. She won a seat that had been under Republican control for years. Rodriguez emphasized her background working previously as a nurse in a Baltimore emergency room, saying she wanted to continue Evers' emphasis on fighting to protect reproductive freedom, invest in public schools and rebuild the economy. She noted that the state Legislature is within reach of Democratic control, meaning that with a Democratic governor, they could finally enact policies Republicans have blocked for years like expanding Medicaid. A registered nurse, Rodriguez previously worked as a health care executive and an epidemic intelligence service officer with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. She has a master's degree in public health. Rodriguez emphasized the importance of health care, including protecting abortion rights, in a brief speech she delivered on the first night of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago last year. Rodriguez, who is married with two children, launched her candidacy on her 50th birthday. In her first run for office in 2020, when she was elected to the Legislature, Rodriguez said she was motivated to get into politics because of how Republicans handled the COVID-19 pandemic. Rodriguez won the Democratic primary for lieutenant governor in 2022 after then-Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, who held the office in Evers' first term, decided to run for the Senate. Barnes, who lost that race to Republican Sen. Ron Johnson, is among several Democrats considering a run for governor next year. Others include Attorney General Josh Kaul, state Sen. Kelda Roys, Secretary of State Sarah Godlewski, Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson and Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley. On the Republican side, Washington County Executive Josh Schoemann and suburban Milwaukee businessman Bill Berrien are the only announced candidates. Others, including U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany and state Senate President Mary Felzkowski, are considering it.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Agenda Stuck in Legal Wrangling Despite Supreme Court Wins
(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump has cast successes at the US Supreme Court as broad endorsements of his authority to fire agency heads, shrink the government workforce and halt billions of dollars in federal spending. Trump Awards $1.26 Billion Contract to Build Biggest Immigrant Detention Center in US The High Costs of Trump's 'Big Beautiful' New Car Loan Deduction Can This Bridge Ease the Troubled US-Canadian Relationship? Salt Lake City Turns Winter Olympic Bid Into Statewide Bond Boom Some lower court judges see it differently. Supreme Court rulings are supposed to be the final word on disagreements over the law. But the growing number of decisions being issued with little explanation on an emergency basis — often referred to as the 'shadow docket' — is creating even more legal wrangling. Now, tensions are building not only between the executive branch and the courts, but also within the judiciary. 'This is not helpful at all for lower court judges,' said Dickinson College President John Jones, a former federal district judge in Pennsylvania confirmed during the George W. Bush administration. 'You're reading an abbreviated opinion from the Supreme Court like it's a Rosetta Stone.' The Justice Department has been arguing that the emergency track wins should translate into victories in other lawsuits against Trump's agenda. Federal judges are pushing back, saying the high court isn't giving them enough to work with. This week, the Supreme Court stepped in to settle one such dispute that one of its earlier orders created. A Maryland federal judge had blocked Trump's removal of Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, saying it was different in key ways from a firing fight the justices resolved in the president's favor on May 22. In a two-paragraph order on Wednesday, the conservative majority said the district judge got it wrong, and the officials couldn't keep their jobs while they pressed the merits of their lawsuit. The problem, some judges say, is that more cases are reaching the justices on an emergency basis — often in the early stages, without oral arguments and with minimal or no explanation. These orders are frequently just a few paragraphs issued in weeks or even days, in stark contrast with argued cases that unfold over months and result in lengthy opinions offering more robust guidance. 'Tea Leaves' In yet another in the growing stack of firing cases, a Washington federal judge last week refused to let Trump oust Democrats from the Federal Trade Commission. US District Judge Loren AliKhan said she wouldn't read the 'tea leaves' in the justices' May 22 decision, a four-paragraph order that let Trump fire top officials at two other agencies. That ruling 'weighs against' the dismissed officials, she said, but doesn't settle questions over a 90-year-old precedent limiting a president's firing power at federal agencies. 'It would be an act of judicial hubris' to base a decision on what the justices might do later, AliKhan wrote in her order reinstating one of the commissioners. She was 'unsure of what to make of' the justices' order, absent more details about what they intended or how they reached their outcome. An appeals court has temporarily paused her ruling. A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment. A senior White House official who requested anonymity to discuss pending litigation said lower court judges aren't respecting the spirit of the Supreme Court's orders as well as the rulings themselves, and seemed to be taking extraordinary steps to avoid applying them to other cases. The official accused judges of defying the Supreme Court because of policy disagreements. The conflicts are growing as the Trump administration has taken lower court losses to the justices on an emergency basis 21 times so far this year. Unlike cases the court hears on the merits, emergency cases usually don't involve in-person arguments, robust written briefs or lengthy opinions that explain how the majority reached a decision. They don't offer a rubric for lower courts to apply new precedents going forward. For the Supreme Court's 2023-24 term, the average length of a majority opinion was 5,010 words, according to Empirical SCOTUS, a blog that tracks data on the high court. The majority's July 14 emergency order that allowed the administration to go ahead with Education Department layoffs — praised by Trump on social media as 'a Major Victory' — was only 104 words. There are rare exceptions, such as the fight over Trump's birthright citizenship plan, in which the justices heard arguments and wrote a lengthy opinion. Still, the majority's June decision — which Trump called a 'GIANT WIN' on social media — left key issues unresolved for lower courts to sort through. The justices curbed judges' authority to expansively halt government actions but didn't completely rule out nationwide blocks. They didn't touch the core question of whether Trump's executive order is constitutional. In an emergency order, the Supreme Court considers which side is ultimately likely to succeed on the underlying legal questions, but the justices also focus on the harm each side might suffer in the interim. Shadow Docket Tension on the Supreme Court over the escalating shadow docket activity predates Trump's latest term in office. Justice Elena Kagan wrote in 2021 that the conservative majority's use of the process resulted in decisions that were becoming 'more unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend.' Justice Samuel Alito accused critics of portraying the process as something 'sinister' in order to 'intimidate the court or damage it as an independent institution.' In remarks to a federal judges' conference on Thursday, Kagan underscored her concerns about the challenges that emergency orders create for lower courts. The justices 'don't usually meet about shadow docket matters and discuss them in the way we do with merits cases,' she said. There is 'a real responsibility that I think we didn't recognize when we first started down this road to explain things better.' The Trump administration's 21 emergency requests in six months exceeds the total number brought by the Biden administration and during the combined presidencies of Barack Obama and George W. Bush, according to research by Stephen Vladeck, a Georgetown University law professor and prominent critic of the court's use of the shadow docket. The government has won 16 of the cases at least in part, even if only temporarily. The administration withdrew one application and largely lost four cases, including one filed by Venezuelans who were at risk of being sent to a notorious Salvadoran prison. Trump's wave of policies testing the bounds of presidential power has been met with a deluge of lawsuits, many of which have included requests by challengers for swift intervention by judges. The Justice Department, in turn, has quickly moved to at least temporarily halt the effects of lower court losses while it appeals. But that strategy hasn't always worked. It took just over two weeks for a federal appeals court in Boston to deny the government's emergency request to resume cuts to scientific research grants that a district judge blocked. In a July 18 order, a three-judge panel said it had 'no difficulty distinguishing' the facts of the case from the justices' emergency order in April letting the administration cut teacher-training grants. The Justice Department on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the grant fight. In its latest emergency application the administration claimed that 'district-court defiance' of the justices' April order 'has grown to epidemic proportions' in other funding cases. A Boston federal judge this month rejected the Justice Department's attempt to 'misguidedly argue' that two other Supreme Court orders required her to let Trump fire Department of Health and Human Services workers. In the first order, the justices said Trump could broadly proceed with a push to shrink the federal workforce but didn't rule on the lawfulness of any agency plan. In the other, the majority didn't offer an explanation when it let layoffs continue at the Education Department. The HHS case was likely to 'wind its way up and down the appellate courts,' US District Judge Melissa DuBose wrote, but 'this court declines the defendants' invitation to short circuit that process.' Soon after the Supreme Court ruled in the mass firing fight, the San Francisco federal judge handling that case rejected the government's argument that it was effectively over. US District Judge Susan Illston wrote that the justices' 'terse order' was 'inherently preliminary' and left issues unsettled. With agencies carrying out layoffs following the Supreme Court's order, she wrote, 'the issues in this case remain of significant public importance.' The Justice Department raced to a federal appeals court, which this week temporarily paused Illston's latest order while it decides what to do. Should the government lose the latest round, it could bring the case back to the justices. --With assistance from Suzanne Monyak and Greg Stohr. Burning Man Is Burning Through Cash It's Not Just Tokyo and Kyoto: Tourists Descend on Rural Japan Confessions of a Laptop Farmer: How an American Helped North Korea's Wild Remote Worker Scheme Elon Musk's Empire Is Creaking Under the Strain of Elon Musk A Rebel Army Is Building a Rare-Earth Empire on China's Border ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
