FUCK THE DSA

Author, Tyler Letren | Editor, AI Jul 20, 2026 4:00AM

When the Left Starts Sounding Like the Extremists It Claims to Fight

History has a way of repeating itself, and lately the American left has been giving us a painful reminder of why that phrase exists.

The Democratic Socialists of America have embraced rhetoric that, at its worst, is indistinguishable from the language of white nationalists and jihadist propagandists, the very ideologies the left claims to stand against. That is not a comparison I make lightly. But when a movement built around "tolerance" and "inclusion" starts trafficking in the oldest hatred in human history, the label has to fit the behavior.

The antisemitism was the crack in the ice for me.

Watching Jewish Americans, including lifelong Democrats; get vilified, harassed, and treated as enemies of the coalition they helped build should have been a five-alarm fire for the entire party. Instead, it barely registered. Hatred doesn't become more tolerable because it wears a progressive label. It's still hatred, and it should have been disqualifying the moment it surfaced.

Then came the casual Nazi comparisons. During the 2024 campaign, Kamala Harris repeatedly likened Donald Trump to Hitler and called him a fascist, leaning on secondhand claims from a former Trump chief of staff. Set aside where you stand on Trump. Invoking Hitler and the Holocaust as a rhetorical bludgeon against a political opponent cheapens one of history's greatest atrocities and it is a strange line of attack to run against a man whose own daughter, son-in-law, and grandchildren are Jewish.

So here is the question Democrats need to answer: since when does their party echo the same hateful rhetoric it built its entire identity opposing? And more importantly since when do Democrats provide cover for activists who openly despise them? The DSA's contempt for the Democratic establishment isn't a secret. It's the punchline of half their press releases. Yet the party keeps making room at the table.

Hatred is hatred. It doesn't get a pass because of which side of the aisle it comes from.

That same principle equal standards, applied equally should extend to how we think about opportunity in this country. In states like California, employers should not be permitted to require applicants to speak Spanish, or any language other than English, unless the job genuinely demands it. Language requirements should track the actual duties of a position, not function as an unstated hiring filter. I'd take that argument all the way to the Supreme Court if it came to it.

English is the common language of the United States. Out of respect for the overwhelming majority of job seekers the vast share of whom speak English as their primary language employment should stay broadly accessible, with additional language requirements reserved for the narrow set of roles where they are demonstrably necessary.

If equal opportunity is the actual goal, the standard has to be the same for everyone. No exceptions, and no excuses whether the double standard shows up in who gets held accountable for hate speech, or in who gets locked out of a job application before they even walk in the door.