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