As Democratic Socialists of America–backed candidates rack up wins in primaries and general elections, conservative commentators have reached for the familiar red-baiting playbook—calling them “socialists” and “communists.” But a new essay in The Federalist argues that label isn’t just ineffective; it’s aimed at the wrong target entirely.
The real driver behind the DSA’s electoral rise, the piece contends, isn’t Marxist ideology but what it calls “Third-Worldism”—a tribal, ethno-religious political culture imported through decades of mass immigration from Muslim-majority countries. According to the essay, this dynamic has fundamentally reshaped Democratic primary electorates in ways that defy traditional American political norms.
The ‘Lulu Lenin’ Problem
The essay opens by dismissing the idea that calling New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani a “commie”—or Sen. John Kennedy’s recent “Lulu Lenins” quip—will sway voters. For younger Americans, the word “socialist” simply doesn’t carry the Cold War stigma it once did, the author argues. Baby Boomers and Gen Xers are “simply mistaken” if they think the epithet will sting.
But the deeper issue, per the essay, is cultural rather than generational. The author points to a recent Michigan Democratic Senate primary exit poll showing that among non-Arab voters, the race between Abdul El-Sayed and Haley Stevens was nearly tied—47.9 percent to 48.2 percent. Among Arab voters, however, 94 percent backed El-Sayed. That kind of bloc voting, the essay argues, is “identity politics on steroids” and “alien to the American political experience.”
“Tribalism, in a word, is what drives much of the support for DSA-affiliated candidates,” the essay states, arguing that Muslim immigrants will vote for Muslim candidates and Arabs for Arab candidates, regardless of ideological fit.
From Minnesota to New York
The essay cites examples across the country: Somali immigrants transforming Minnesota state politics, and New York City’s immigrant voters—not over-educated white liberals—propelling Mamdani to the mayor’s office over a majority of native-born voters who opposed him.
It also draws comparisons to Britain, where the 2024 national elections “revealed for the first time a recognizably Islamic agenda,” according to the essay, the result of similar immigration patterns over recent decades.
The critique extends to policy. Mamdani’s proposal for city-run grocery stores is mocked by the right as a failed commie scheme, but the essay argues his immigrant-dominated constituency will support it regardless of economic outcome—because it promises them cheaper food, at least temporarily.
Welfare, Fraud, and ‘Virtue’
The essay makes a stark claim about what it calls the “Third World mindset”: that defrauding the government or scamming outsiders is considered virtuous when it benefits one’s own clan or community. It points to Medicaid fraud in Minnesota’s Somali community and to Rep. Ilhan Omar’s alleged ties to the Feeding Our Future scheme.
It also highlights El-Sayed’s history of presenting himself as a physician in campaign ads despite never having practiced medicine or obtained a medical license—a fact even Politico noted in May, citing state medical records from Michigan and New York.
“Fraud in the service of an ethnic community is a prominent feature of immigrant politicians,” the essay asserts, while conceding that native-born politicians are also capable of deception.
‘Ottoman Millet System’ in America?
The essay warns that this trajectory points toward a modern-day version of the Ottoman millet system, where separate systems of justice and policy apply to different religious and ethnic groups. It cites scholars David Betz and Michael Rainsborough of King’s College London, who describe imperial governance as “the negotiation of the division of the spoils and balance of power within factional groupings.”
Concrete examples cited include a Massachusetts bill to create a “Muslim Commission” to influence state policy, Hamtramck, Michigan’s legalization of backyard animal sacrifice, and the growth of Sharia courts. The essay notes that even El-Sayed has said he has an “obligation” to follow Sharia law.
The piece concludes by suggesting that efforts to “outlaw Sharia” miss the point—the real issue, it argues, is that mass immigration has brought a population that wants these institutions.
Source: thefederalist.com — https://thefederalist.com/2026/08/12/the-problem-with-dsa-democrats-isnt-socialism-its-third-worldism/