Political candidates from the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) have adopted an increasingly sophisticated tactic to avoid direct confrontation with voters while advancing policies that would fundamentally reshape American governance—a strategy critics call “misdirection.”
The DSA’s platform, which includes abolishing Congress, the presidency, and the Supreme Court; dismantling prisons; granting amnesty to undocumented immigrants; ending military funding; and implementing government ownership of major corporations, has drawn significant attention. Yet when DSA candidates enter general elections, they often distance themselves from these radical commitments without formally renouncing them.
This approach was recently exposed through a series of examples. In Michigan’s 7th District, Will Lawrence—a socialist candidate endorsed by Senator Bernie Sanders and co-founder of the Sunrise Movement—won a competitive Democratic primary running on DSA policies. Within months, he dropped his DSA membership while retaining the party’s endorsement and policy commitments. When questioned about his alignment with the group, Lawrence declined to specify differences but emphasized representing constituents rather than organizational ideology.
Similarly, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ro Khanna have attempted to disassociate themselves from the DSA without abandoning its core principles. The DSA’s co-chairs, Megan Romer and Ashik Siddique, however, have not shied away from their platform’s extremism. During a Fox News interview with Shannon Bream, Romer explicitly endorsed abolishing the Senate, presidency, Supreme Court, borders, prisons, and large corporations—all while framing them as “long-term” goals.
Commentator Leif Larson highlighted this tension, drawing parallels to French poet Charles Baudelaire’s warning about the Devil’s “cleverest trick”: convincing people that he does not exist. DSA candidates, Larson argues, are using misdirection to appear moderate without sacrificing their radical agenda—a move that has drawn criticism for its strategic ambiguity.
The DSA’s platform represents a direct alignment with communist economic principles, including government control of the means of production. For voters who remain unaware of these commitments—often described as “ethnic Democrats” who prioritize party loyalty over policy clarity—the misdirection risks deepening confusion about political realignments in American democracy. As Maya Angelou warned, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.”