Candidates running under the Democratic Socialists of America banner have mastered a sophisticated political trick: they quietly abandon their party membership while retaining the radical policies it champions. This tactic has been deployed by at least three prominent candidates ahead of the general election, allowing them to claim neutrality on communist platforms without publicly renouncing them.
The strategy hinges on a deliberate misdirection that mirrors French poet Charles Baudelaire’s warning about “the Devil’s cleverest trick”—convincing voters he does not exist. As Michigan’s 7th District socialist candidate Will Lawrence explained, his decision to lapse from Democratic Socialists of America membership did not signal a rejection of its platform. When asked if the timing was tied to the November election against Republican Rep. Tom Barrett, Lawrence insisted he sought only to represent constituents, adding that he “wouldn’t say where he actually differs” on policy. Under DSA bylaws, unpaid dues alone do not constitute expulsion—meaning candidates can sever formal ties while still endorsing the group’s agenda.
This approach echoes similar efforts by House members Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ro Khanna, who have publicly claimed ignorance of the Democratic Socialists of America despite its radical platform. The DSA’s policies explicitly demand abolishing Congress, the presidency, and the Supreme Court; dismantling prisons and immigration enforcement; granting amnesty to undocumented immigrants; and transitioning most major industries under government control. As co-chairman Megan Romer confirmed in a Fox News interview, these proposals constitute “a long-term program” for systemic transformation.
The tactic has proven effective in Democratic primaries where candidates have secured victories while avoiding direct confrontation with their party’s core ideology. Yet the illusion of neutrality risks backfiring when voters—particularly those who remain unaware of the DSA’s communist framework—discover they’ve been misled. The group’s strategy reveals a fundamental truth: when candidates claim to represent “their constituents” while operating under an agenda that redefines American governance, they have already chosen their side.
