T

wenty-three. This year a 
75-year-old 
democratic 

socialist won 23 states 

in a presidential primary, and 
America was astounded. How 
could a man preaching a form of 
socialism achieve even 
close to this amount of 
success in a country 
that prides itself on 
being the epicenter 
of 
capitalism? 
A 

democratic 
socialist 

as 
president? 
The 

concept 
seems 

blasphemous.

Capitalism 
is 

a 
deep-seated 

American institution, 
and 
as 
a 
result, 

much of the nation shares a 
feeling 
of 
antipathy 
toward 

non-capitalist 
philosophies, 

including democratic socialism. 
But does the vast majority of our 
population even know what a 
democratic socialist is? To many, 
the term was heard for the first 
time during this election cycle, 
and since then it has been thrown 
around constantly without a 
concrete definition.

We are certainly not strangers 

to the term “democratic,” and 
our media has made sure that 
we’ve become familiar with 
some concept of socialism over 
the years, virtually turning 
it into a political swear word 
since the rise of the Soviet 
Union. I can’t help but wonder: 
What happens when you mix 
these two concepts together? Is 
democratic socialism the same 
thing as the supposed socialist 
boogeyman that we’ve heard 
so much about? Should our 
leaders be concerned that the 
proletariat masses will soon be 
up in arms?

According to Lisa Disch, the 

director of graduate studies in 
political science and a professor 
of political theory here at the 
University of Michigan, not 
exactly.

“I don’t think that much of 

what 
passes 
for 
democratic 

socialism today in the U.S. has 
much of a relationship to Karl 
Marx, except for the fact that 
Bernie Sanders is an unabashed 
user of the term ‘class,’ ” she 
said in an interview with The 
Michigan Daily. “Democrats or 
Republicans think of America as 
a pluralist society, which means 
that we are a society made up 
of many different competing 
groups whose memberships can 
overlap,” she continued. “Nobody 
overlaps between being a member 
of the middle class or the elite … 
It’s a more divisive way of looking 
at our society.”

So, one of the primary ways to 

classify democratic socialism is 
by its belief that distinct social 
classes exist in our country, 
but that doesn’t seem like such 
a radical idea in itself. From 
the way it’s portrayed in the 

media, 
there 
has 

to be more to the 
story; 
democratic 

socialists still want 
to 
overthrow 
our 

society and plunge 
us into chaos, right?

According to Disch, 

Sanders is no Marxist. 
He’s not looking for 
an overthrow of the 
capitalist system, but 
rather a move toward 
social policies from 

the New Deal. Well, there goes 
my dream of a proletarian utopia. 

While a political renewal 

may not have the same visceral 
impact as a political revolution, 
this point does raise some 
interesting 
questions. 
First 

and foremost, is democratic 
socialism truly a new concept in 
mainstream American politics, 
or is it simply a rebranding 
of older ideas? On further 
examination, it seems that the 
answer may be the latter. 

In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt 

was elected to be the 32nd 
president of the United States, 
ushered in by a wave of support 
for his promise of a New Deal for 
the American people. Roosevelt 
thought the government had a 
duty to stimulate the economy 
and provide for its citizens; 
he 
stressed 
the 
need 
for 

environmental 
conservation, 

lamented the greed of Wall 
Street bankers and promised to 
put people to work by improving 
our 
nation’s 
infrastructure. 

It may seem that I’m simply 
reading from the Bernie Sanders 
debate playbook by rattling off 
these talking points, but rather, it 
appears that the basic principles 
of 
Roosevelt 
and 
Sanders’ 

platforms mirror each other, and 
this certainly comes through in 
their orations.

In 
his 
second 
inaugural 

address in 1937, Roosevelt stated: 

In this nation I see tens of 

millions of its citizens, a substantial 
part of its whole population, who 
at this very moment are denied 
the greater part of what the very 
lowest standards of today call the 
necessities of life. I see millions of 
families trying to live on incomes 
so meager that the pall of family 
disaster hangs over them day 
by day … I see millions denied 
education, recreation, and the 
opportunity to better their lot and 
the lot of their children … The test 
of our progress is not whether we 
add more to the abundance of those 

who have much; it is whether we 
provide enough for those who have 
too little.

This 
concept 
of 
helping 

the downtrodden reads like a 
page taken straight from Sen. 
Sanders’s stump speeches, and 
was the basic premise behind 
many of FDR’s policies.

With this in mind, it is 

important to note that Bernie 
Sanders is not preaching a 
foreign concept to American 
citizens. 
Rather, 
his 
ideas 

are reminiscent of those that 
allowed the Democratic Party 
to hold the White House 20 
years in a row starting with the 
election of Roosevelt.

The parallels are clear, as 

throughout 
his 
four 
terms 

as 
president, 
FDR 
greatly 

expanded 
the 
role 
of 
the 

government and created social 
welfare programs that remain 
American institutions to this 
day. Yet, the honest truth is 
that programs such as Social 
Security and the CCC would 
have been declared dead on 
arrival in our era of nonstop 
media coverage, the label of 
socialism dooming them before 
they were even considered.

This is the dilemma that 

Sanders faces, as the title of 
democratic socialism seems to 
have blinded the media to the 
precedent 
of 
the 
large-scale 

social programs that he has 
proposed. Rather than look back 
on history, we are content to deem 
his proposals idealistic fantasies 
instead of concrete policies, a 
temptation that we must resist. 
While ideas such as free college 
tuition for all may sound lofty and 
unattainable to some, the same 
could certainly be said about a 
program that would provide a 
livable income for generations of 
our nation’s retirees when Social 
Security was first passed nearly a 
century ago.

This is not an endorsement of 

democratic socialism, but rather 
a public service announcement 
of sorts. We as Americans 
need to resist the temptation 
to dismiss something simply 
because we do not understand 
it. We are often blinded by 
our prejudices when words 
such as socialism are thrown 
around, and it should be a goal 
of all Americans to never reject 
something merely out of a lack 
of understanding, because with 
a little context, even something 
as unfamiliar as democratic 
socialism may not seem so 
radical after all.

I 

am, and always have been, a 
proud Democrat. As a young 
Black 
male, 
I 
attribute 

this 
loyalty 
to 
the 
party’s 

commitment to diversity and 
inclusion. Democrats — unlike 
their counterparts on the right 
— seem much less 
hostile 
and 
more 

inviting to people 
from all walks of 
life, even if they look 
different, pray to a 
different god or have 
less money.

These 
ideals 

were 
constantly 

emphasized during 
Monday 
night’s 

presidential debates. 
Democratic nominee Hillary 
Clinton recounted the many 
times she heard constituents’ 
struggles, often due at least in 
part to their race, religion or 
any other characteristic that 
separates and ostracizes them 
from the citizens of middle-
class, white America. Speakers 
delivered 
similar 
messages 

at the Democratic National 
Convention this summer in 
Philadelphia, 
which 
I 
was 

fortunate enough to attend. 
However, despite the party’s 
focus on inclusivity, I found it 
cold and unwelcoming for non-
elites such as myself.

On my first morning at the 

convention, I was in awe at the 
hordes of police officers and 
Secret Service members guarding 
the convention. While I recognize 
the need to secure the convention 
hall from dangerous threats, 
security’s 
constantly 
hassling 

convention-goers and citizens 
— from the subway station miles 
away to moving from room to 
room in the convention hall — 
seemed a bit excessive. To me, 
they crossed the line between 
securing the building and creating 

an unwelcoming environment; 
I couldn’t make a simple trip to 
the bathroom without having to 
verify my credentials. I couldn’t 
help but wonder that maybe if I 
looked different or I’d had more 
money, I wouldn’t have had to do 

that.

And even before I 

entered the convention 
hall, 
I 
experienced 

a 
decidedly 
classist 

event. The long line to 
get in was stretching 
outside the security 
tent, but with no other 
option than waiting 
in line, I stood in the 
July heat to check in. 
Finally, the line began 

dwindling down. However, as 
I reached the end of the line 
and 
approached 
the 
metal 

detector, I was pushed aside by 
a police officer accompanying a 
well-dressed, and presumably 
wealthy, couple. They skipped 
the lengthy line I had worked 
my way down, and walked 
straight through security and 
onto a special DNC golf cart that 
whisked them away.

For the party of inclusivity, it 

sure did seem like you could buy 
your way to a better experience if 
you were privileged enough.

The rest of the convention felt 

the same, with special lounges 
and luxury boxes for some people 
but not for others. Everything 
down to the refreshments, which 
cost almost $5 for a bottle of 
water and more than $6 for a hot 
dog, served as a subtle reminder 
that the convention (and perhaps 
the party) was a space for the 
rich and powerful, not the 
everyday people most affected 
by the party’s decision — despite 
what the party leaders would 
have you believe.

As a proud Democrat, it feels 

wrong to say the only time I 

truly felt equal to my peers at the 
national convention was covering 
the protests outside. Everyone 
— rich and poor — was united 
in a common mission; everyone, 
from Jill Stein to just normal 
people like you and me, walked 
together in unity. In order to see 
the party they wanted to create, 
Democratic leaders simply had 
to look just beyond the wall of 
security personnel and fences 
they put up.

Now that the election is well 

underway, I’m left thinking: 
Am I making a mountain out of 
a molehill, or is this actually a 
reflection of how the Democratic 
Party 
operates? 
Are 
the 

Democrats really the party of 
inclusivity, as the spokespersons 
and nominee portray them to 
be, or is their top priority the 
livelihoods of the affluent, as the 
prices and “who’s who” feel of 
the DNC showed? Sadly for me, I 
don’t know the answer.

I do know, however, that this 

type of division is not what we 
need. While the short-term goal 
of the Democratic Party should 
be to defeat Donald Trump, the 
future of the Democratic Party 
— a party rooted in the ideals 
of equality — should aim to 
eliminate elitism from its ranks. 
It’s apparent that more people 
are becoming aware of the 
pitfalls of classism, as evidenced 
by the popularity of the Occupy 
protests and the success of 
more-liberal 
candidates 
and 

third parties. As this awakening 
continues to grow throughout 
the country, the future of the 
Democratic Party will only be 
secure when its practices match 
what it preaches.

D

ear family of the next 
Black man slain,

Instead 
of 
telling 

you sorry for your loss, I want 
to know what your son, father, 
cousin was like. 
What did he do 
for a living? How 
did he make you 
smile? What music 
did he listen to? 
Show 
me 
your 

favorite picture of 
him, not the one 
the news stations 
plaster. What was 
the last thing you 
said to him?

I’m 
sure 
you 

told him to be respectful when 
a cop approaches him. A mother 
should never fear for her child 
when interacting with those who 
protect and serve. Black men are 
told to keep their hoods down, 
their hands out of their pockets, 
their wallets on the dashboard, 
their mouths shut. But they’ve 
been killed for having a hood up, 
stalked for strolling with fingers 
dipping into blue jean pockets, 
murdered for a movement toward 
their license and registration, not 
a pistol, and had their mouths 
permanently closed by death. 

So many have been shot 

because of their dark complexion 
— each time, we say their names. 
We will say your son’s name, too. 
We will remember him forever. 
He will notw be relegated to a 
hashtag or a thought that lasts 
for just a few days. I will pray in 
response to his wrongful death; 
our protests will be productive 
and peaceful. As you know, 
rioting won’t solve anything, and 
that behavior only hinders the 
success we can have in getting 
more to empathize with this clear 
problem of police brutality. We 
will march. We will speak up. We 
will work toward change.

In this fight, know you are 

not alone. You have a nation of 
millions behind you. We will 
not rest until the violence stops. 
Continue to live as your loved 

one would like you to. I 
imagine some hate would 
be creeping in your heart 
toward whomever killed 
your son and toward 
the system — I can only 
imagine how much rage 
would fill me if my own 
father was murdered. 
Please take your time to 
grieve and rest. During 
that time, we will back 
you up, pouring out 
love and truth. We can 

even be filled with hate — it’s so 
difficult to get rid of. But I will 
work toward love, because it 
conquers all. As Martin Luther 
King Jr. once said, “Darkness 
cannot drive out darkness, only 
light can do that. Hate cannot 
drive out hate, only love can do 
that.”

But this hate has been strong, 

and double standards weigh 
heavy on our minds. The cop 
who shot your loved one will 
likely serve little time in jail, if 
any. If the tables were turned 
and the cop was the victim, the 
Black man would be serving 25 
to life. The system is broken, 
and the Black man is profiled, 
followed and deemed dangerous. 
But he was just in a perfectly 
normal place at a normal time, 
with the wrong cop, and dare I 
say, the wrong skin.

It’s terrible how the color 

of our skin reflects how we’re 
treated in this world, a problem 
that has existed since this 
country began. From plantations, 
to buses in Montgomery, to the 
streets of Flint and Baltimore, 
there’s 
a 
clear 
discrepancy. 

There are still people out there 
who don’t believe this is true 

or haven’t noticed. I hope that 
you will speak up when you are 
ready. Every voice matters, and 
your story is important.

For now, I’ll grieve with you. 

I won’t become desensitized 
to the deaths that happen far 
too often. I’ll pray for healing 
for your family and for God to 
answer your cries for justice. 
But I’m also angry, as I’m sure 
you are. I’m certain you’re 
tired from the violence, making 
unfortunate phone calls and not 
getting concrete answers. You’re 
probably weary from the tears 
and not being able to hug the man 
you loved dearly. I’m so sorry.

I know I can’t speak to all 

your emotions at this time. I 
fall short in emphasizing with 
you fully. This letter is one of 
the only things I can offer you. 
I don’t know if you’ll read it. I 
don’t know who you are and I 
didn’t know who I was writing 
to when I took my fingers to a 
keyboard. I just knew that sadly, 
another Black man would be 
slain in a street. Because that 
is commonplace in the United 
States of America in 2016. Some 
are angrier about a backup NFL 
quarterback kneeling for the 
national anthem than cold blood 
trickling down warm pavement. 
I’m pissed off and scared and 
weeping for the man who is 
dead. It didn’t have to happen 
again. You know that — you’ve 
been saying that. 

I’m at a loss for words. But 

my email will be listed at the 
bottom of this. If you read this, 
please reach out — I want to do 
something, I just don’t know 
what. We’ve never met, but I love 
you and I am with you.

Grace, peace and love,
Chris Crowder

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, September 29, 2016

— University President Mark Schlissel in an email to the 
campus community reacting to the fliers found in Angell and 

Mason Hall on Monday.

“

NOTABLE QUOTABLE

Behavior that seeks to intentionally 

cause pain to members of our 
community is reprehensible. It 
violates basic human decency 

and goes against the values of our 

university. ”

Chris Crowder can be reached at 

ccrowd@umich.edu

An open letter

CHRIS CROWDER | COLUMN

LAURA SCHINAGLE

Managing Editor

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

SHOHAM GEVA

Editor in Chief

CLAIRE BRYAN 

and REGAN DETWILER 

Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board. 

All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

Carolyn Ayaub
Claire Bryan

Regan Detwiler
Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan

Ben Keller

Minsoo Kim

Payton Luokkala

Kit Maher

Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy 

Jason Rowland

Lauren Schandevel

Kevin Sweitzer

Rebecca Tarnopol

Ashley Tjhung

Stephanie Trierweiler

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Jeff Brooks can be reached at 

brooksjs@umich.edu

Jason Rowland can be reached at 

jerow@umich.edu

JASON

ROWLAND

The people’s party?

JASON ROWLAND | COLUMN

Democratic socialism isn’t new

JEFF BROOKS | COLUMN

JEFF

BROOKS

CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION

Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor 

and op-eds. Letters should be fewer than 300 words while 

op-eds should be 550 to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name 

and University affiliation to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.

CHRIS 

CROWDER

