86 Democrats Join GOP in Voting for 'Very, Very Stupid' Resolution Condemning Socialism

Dozens of US House Democrats who joined the Republican Party on Friday in backing a resolution that denounced “socialism in all its forms" and opposed "the implementation of socialist policies in the United States" did so despite the fact that the GOP has used the term "socialism" liberally to describe a variety of social welfare programs—making the true meaning of the resolution open to interpretation.

"Socialism" is the word President Donald Trump has used for proposals to ensure the federal government provides healthcare to everyone in the US, and he's among the Republicans who have warned extending Medicare to all Americans would "bankrupt our nation"—despite studies showing that the system would save more than $600 billion per year, and that wealthy countries that ensure all citizens have health coverage have far better health outcomes than the US.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) called the Green New Deal, which would create 3.4 million new green jobs per year, a "socialist scheme."

During the Great Depression, Social Security—now credited with lifting more Americans out of poverty than any other US government program—was denounced by opponents of President Franklin D. Roosevelt as "socialism," as was Medicare when it was introduced in 1965.

Republicans and their wealthy donors have warned that New York City's Democratic mayor-elect, democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani, will wreak havoc on the city with his plans for fare-free buses and a network of city-owned grocery stores, with the president calling him a "100% Communist lunatic." Fare-free public transit already exists in about 100 thriving cities around the world, including a growing number in the US, and more than a million Americans already benefit from publicly owned grocery stores where prices are 25-30% lower than at private stores—which also continue to run.

Friday's resolution, introduced by Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.), states its opposition to "socialist ideologues" including Joseph Stalin and Kim Jong Un as well as the "collectivistic system of socialism in all of its forms."

After the US House vote on Friday, former Democratic Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner said that considering how "the GOP calls every social safety net measure 'socialism,' votes like this matter in a policy context."

They also say a lot, said Turner, about the Democratic leaders—like House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (NY), House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (Mass.), and House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (Calif.)—who voted for the resolution.

"House Minority Leader Jeffries voting with the GOP in favor of this resolution is showing his ultrawealthy donors exactly who he fights for," said Turner. "It’s not the people."

Jeffries waited until the final days of the New York City mayoral campaign to endorse Mamdani, despite the fact that the candidate had won Jeffries' district in the June primary and captured national attention for his relentless focus on making the city more affordable for New Yorkers.

Drop Site News was among those that noted the House voted as Mamdani was en route to Washington, DC to meet with Trump for the first time. The support for the resolution among top Democrats who have refused to embrace the popular young politician's meteoric rise was viewed by some as a statement regarding Mamdani's visit to the White House—during which Trump gave the mayor-elect a comparatively warm welcome.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) said those who supported the "pointless" resolution "feel threatened by democratic socialists like myself who are unbought and willing to take on the billionaire class."

Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) called the debate over socialism on the House floor "so very, very stupid."

"A bunch of people with taxpayer-funded salaries, doing a job that is impossible to outsource to the private sector, are condemning the evils of socialism," said Casten. "Either they are stupid, or that they think you are."

"We have a mixed economy," he added. "We benefit from free markets and competition in lots of sectors, and also have a judicial system, border security, national defense, economic security for seniors and those who can't work that is socially funded. That's a good thing! Condemning one half of that equation has no more logic—and is no more deserving of finite House floor time—than condemning defensive linemen because they never score touchdowns."